Nope. I am reporting the experience of living on a hillside in a pretty densely packed urban area. I use the antennas that stick to the windows on my TV's throughout the house. On the north side I can get *some* Baltimore stations, but none on the south side. On the south side I can get many Virginia stations I can't get on the north side. IOW, each TV's channel list is substantially different depending on which side of the house the aerial for that TV is located. Now, with all the Mediasonic boxes I just bought, I will be able to run that same test with identical tuners that have signal level meters built-in to eliminate any possible tuner sensitivity differences.
This is in a fairly residential area with out many tall buildings. The situation gets far worse if you're in a tall condo along Mass. Ave in DC where my friend lives. A trip to any of the TV newsgroups or forums will reveal just how many people are in the same boat with "rabbit ears" in urban areas. Aereo specifically targeted cities with known reception issues. Perhaps Aereo has done surveys to determine why people sign up - I haven't found any so far - but I steadfastly believe that many do sign up because their rabbit ears suck and they don't have access to a rooftop or community antenna.
I've seen enough pixelated displays to know that digital TV is in some ways worse than analog. An analog picture degrades in ways that are still viewable in many cases. You just have to put up with ghosts or snow. DTV? Pixelation is the step before dropouts. I live near an airport. I can track planes by the way DTV signal on channel 20 breaks up. With analog, a jet overhead would cause ghosting but the audio remained clear. Now the picture pixelates and then disappears entirely when the plane passes overhead. And the audio goes with it. Aereo would prevent that sort of stuff from happening for me and a lot of other users with set-top aerials.
FWIW, I'll bet that Aereo knows what devices it's streaming to - whether mobile or home.
HBO discovered that more people were downloading "Game of Thrones" than there should be which they attributed to a great deal of "password sharing" among HBO subscribers and their friends.
It really *isn't* serving as a cable system in some very important legal ways. For one, every user has his own antenna, his own DVR and his own copy of what was recorded. That differs substantially (legally speaking) from a CATV system (particularly their DVR components). The CATV systems take one copy of say "House of Cards" and stream in to 1,000's of people. Aereo makes a distinct and separate copy of anything that a user/viewer selects. If 100 Aereo users record "The Big Bang Theory" then there will be 100 distinct "private" copies of that show stored on Aereo's servers:
formatting link
The above article has some fascinating photos of an Aereo "server farm" and tries to explain how various clauses of the laws concerning retransmission apply. They also reiterate what I've been saying all along:
So despite what some people are saying here, there are some serious "dead spots" in large cities that mean people entitled to receive OTA for free can't do so. Aereo remedies that situation. The lower courts and the Federal Court of Appeals have both agreed with that assessment.
The article below is one of the best of dozens I've read when it comes to explaining why Aereo has prevailed in most cases leading up to the current one before the Supremes:
formatting link
retransmit and get paid for it w/o cutting in the others. The signal is
However, if the intention of Congress was that everyone should be able to receive free OTA, the physics of the matter are entirely different. I've read that Aereo does not stream content beyond the area normally reached by OTA's broadcast towers, nor do they permit users to stream the content they've recorded outside that area. They serve only the area that OTA is meant to serve but for technical reasons often can't.
Essentially, they are providing a conduit for the signal to people who can't receive it. They're not cutting out the advertising that supports the broadcast OTA model, either. That's why lower courts have said these are private performances that allow users to exercise their rights to receive free OTA broadcasts even though they might not be able to because their location precludes receiving the free signal. Aereo enables them to receive what Congress decided was their right to receive even though geographic circumstance did not allow it.
But that's the rub. You keep saying that they can "still get it for free" but that's simply not the case. If they live in a "shadow zone" they can't receive the OTA broadcasts that they are entitled to. Aereo uses technology to remedy that situation. Congress allowed broadcasters the right to demand fees because CATV is a one-to-many operation, and thus a public performance. They also wanted to insure the health of the OTA industry by encouraging CATV operators to retransmit local TV channels.
Aereo has been quite scrupulous in maintaining the private performance model, hence if 1,000 Aereo subscribers have recorded "American Idolator" then Aereo creates 1,000 individual copies of that show whereas Comcast will retransmit from a single copy. That's an *extremely* important legal nuance as it pertains to existing communications law.
Remember, the copyright holder is out of this loop. They don't make an extra dime, even if Aereo is eventually compelled to pay retransmission fees. That's why this is a commerce and not a copyright case. The copyright holder is barely considered in all of this. Essentially broadcasters want ti have their cake and be able to eat it too. They want to use the public airwaves but still be able to charge fees even considering the enormous value of free RF spectrum. I say, too bad, so sad. I don't want to pay more fees. Go pound sand, ABC et. al. or bribe Congress once again to change the law in your favor. Good luck with that considering the current "do nothing" Congress.
Voice" or whatever.
I am equally sure you're wrong. I would invite you to prove your contention because it runs counter to the dozens of articles I've read concerning the matter. It's pretty well known to urban dwellers like me that big cities like New York have a very large number of "dead spots" where OTA broadcasts simply aren't accessible. A citation or two would be nice. (-:
In my location the DTV channel list on the north facing TV's (with "paddle" antennas that mount on windows) is substantially different than the channel lists on the south facing or west or east facing antennas.
Remind me again, what large city do you and HomeGuy live in that makes you so sure that everyone in those cities has perfect reception? (-: I've lived in NYC and Washington, DC and I can assure you, reception of even DTV signals is a hit or miss proposition depending on your location and the type of aerial you're able to use. It's the reason I still pay $16 a month to Comcast for basic cable. I just can't bring in the large number of local OTA channels that Congress says I should be able to using an aerial. Therefore I subscribe to basic cable but I'd much rather have Aereo and it's built it DVR for $8 a month. If the retransmission fees went to copyright holders, I might feel different but they don't.
Don't you agree the OTA model is funded by advertising? And that the more people that see a broadcast, the better for both the station and its advertiser? If Aereo brings in local viewers who would not be able to see the OTA signal, isn't that good for them? So why are they whining so much? It's simply because they'd like to get some of those hefty retransmission fees from Aereo, too. And then Aereo would have to raise their rates to customers to pay them. I don't want to pay anymore for cable. We're a laughing stock compared to the rest of the world in what we pay for CATV and internet access and I am tired of getting gouged by monopolistic CATV and ISP companies
formatting link
The chart midway down the page shows how badly Americans are being screwed. For the similar services (the popular three service bundle) you'd pay
$14.52 in Seoul $29.96 in Zurich $33.52 in Berlin $34.87 in Paris and a whopping $112.50 in Washington, DC.
That's just outrageous. It's the power of monopoly/duoply in a country that's basically abandoned regulating monopolistic business enterprises. It's pretty damn obvious that Joe Consumer takes it in the shorts as a result.
This is from the amicus brief of Consumer's Union and CFA:
formatting link
(There's a reason Comcast is one of the most profitable but lowest customer rated businesses in America. They have a virtual monopoly in most of the areas they serve. Isn't it odd how in areas served by both FIOS and Comcast the bundles cost *exactly* the same?)
Why would they want to actually provide a service when the law gives them a gravy train that's powered by higher costs to consumers? What a deal for the broadcasters! I'd like to get me some of that free money! Remember when CATV showed very few commercials? Now, not only do we get to pay higher and higher rates each year, we get less and less content and more and more advertising. That's just not fair but because CATV's are basically monopolies, there's little anyone can do about it.
I, for one, support Aereo because I am tired of getting reamed year after year by Comcast who ups the rate and decreases the number of *good* channels every year. What really pisses me off is that the DoJ seems to be seriously considering allowing Comcast and Time-Warner to merge. That's just what America needs, fewer competitive choices in an already uncompetitve market. NOT!!!
Well, you're entitled to your opinion even if it's wrong but it's important to note that a number of courts have disagreed with you. And I do, too. (-: Aereo is simply providing a way for people to see what they are legally entitled to receive (free OTA) but can't due to geographic constraints. It provides broadcasters with more viewers which in any other circumstances seems to be exactly what they want.
Broadcasters are just hopping mad that Aereo might have found a way out of the windfall "free money retransmission payments" that Congress allowed them to extract from CATV operators. They're even more afraid that just as Congress gave them a retransmission fees windfall, it could wave its money-grubbing little hands and take it away.
If there's any theft involved, it's the law that allowed for such payments in the first place. Another well-intentioned law passed by Congress that screwed the very people it alleged to protect, namely the citizen trying to exercise his right to watch free TV. Remember, OTA broadcasts use a very valuable public commodity, the radio spectrum.
Broadcasters, like Clive Bundy, seem to believe that the use of that public asset is their God given right and not a privilege that can be revoked if Congress so chooses. I'd just love to see them make good on their threat to stop broadcasting if they lose and give up the public spectrum they've been using to make boatloads of money. Yeah, that'll happen. When pigs fly.
But how exactly does Aero control that? AFAIK, all they could do is go by zipcode, address, etc when you establish your account. But how do they know people aren't openly exchanging their account with friends anywhere who want to watch say NYC or LA stations?
That's *part* of it. You seem to be making the assumption that the usage model is just on a TV or PC within a fixed household location that can't receive TV with an antenna. But with Aero, you could watch it on your cell phone or tablet anywhere there is wifi or cell phone data access. And if it's just people who can't receive via a TV antenna, it's a very small market. People who don't have sat or cable are a small part of the TV market today to begin with.
They're not cutting out the advertising that supports the
And if turns out that Aero can do this, then the cable companies could do the same thing, thereby depriving the OTA broadcasters of their huge revenue streams. The cable company just needs to put up a similar farm of wee little antennas like Aero has.
But if Aero prevails, there is nothing stopping the cable companies from doing the same thing Aero does, the next day and stopping payment to the OTA broadcasters. More likely, they would use it as a real threat to drive down the payments they make to the broadcasters.
I'd be interested in seeing how the profits of the cable companies actually compare to other businesses. If the comparison with other countries is fair and square, then the cable companies should have outrageous profit margins. I bet they aren't far out of line with other businesses. And I'll bet that in those other countries with low monthly rates, it's partly because the govts there are subsidizing part of the infrastructure costs.
It's not that people have forgotten it. It's just that only a small percentage of the TV market is satisfied today with the OTA channels. The largest segment of the market wants more than that, ie the many cable/sat channels. And once you get cable/sat, you get the OTA channels as part of it.
Why would you think everyone in say the NYC area can easily pick up all the broadcast TV channels? Clearly there are some people who won't be able to because of issues like buildings blocking the signal, living in a geographic low spot, etc. And then there is a larger segment, where they could receive it, but putting up the necessary antenna is difficult, too costly, landlord won't allow it, etc. What percentage that is, IDK. I would agree that I'm not sure that's Aero's real target market, but for sure there are people in that situation.
I thought we were talking about today, not promises.
Doesn't matter, there are still going to be people who for one reason or another, can't recieve OTA via an antenna.
Can you show us a single hand-held mini TV that doesn't have a telescoping antenna?
I didn't think Robert was making that comparison. Sure, ATSC is better, but that doesn't mean it can penetrate through huge buildings and that everyone is guaranteed to be able to receive it.
I thought you said you solved that a few days ago.
I agree with you that ATSC isn't perfect. There are definitely people out there who for one reason or another, can't pick up OTA stations that they want to watch with a simple antenna. There was a lot of discussion about that, a lot of pissed off people when the transition to ATSC was made. I'm not saying that ATSC is inferior, just that with some transmitters located in different areas from the old transmitters, whatever, there were people who could not receive it. I'm not sure what part of Aero's market that is, but it's real. I'd also really wonder how well a cell phone with an ATSC tuner would work when you're moving around. One reason there may be no rush to offer the product is that the cell phone companies, carriers, etc don't want a bunch of pissed off customers. You're having problems receiving OTA in your house with a real antenna. Imagine what would happen with a tiny antenna built into a cell phone. I could see it working in one room, near a window, but not in another room. Or the signal coming and going as you walk around. If you have a happy customer base and folks aren't clammering for TV on their cell, if I were the cell phone companies, I'd insist that it be a really robust product. Why put something in a phone unless it really works well? Who needs tarnished reputations and bitching customers? In other words, I'd do a lot of testing to make sure it really works well. I wouldn't be surprised that the answer to that testing is one reason they might not be eager to roll it out.
Don't you think Aereo needs more than just an individual antenna for each customer?
Wouldn't then need a dedicated tuner, video decoder, and a server that can "narrow-cast" (not multi-cast) a data stream to each customer?
In fact, there's no reason why Aereo would need an individual antenna for each customer.
What they would need is a single antenna feeding individual tuners/decoders/servers.
After all, usually, any given household has just a single antenna that connects to all the TV's in the house. That obviously is the model for legal consumer TV reception and viewing.
How Aereo goes about proving that has a dedicated tuner/decoder/server for each customer is the problem here.
They could simply have one tuner per channel, such that they decode a single feed for each available TV channel in a given locale and multi-cast that feed to everyone that has chosen to watch each channel at any given time.
That's too much of a reach.
The radio spectrum has been deemed a natural public resource, and a regulatory system has been established to control who can use that resource. You can't heap on top of that some notion that citizens have any particular right to receive licensed broadcasts such that the broadcaster must take special measures to insure reception.
Geographic IP location is tricky, and even moreso when you try to limit someone in Cleveland from being able to watch a TV channel being received in Cincinnatti.
Did the Supreme court ask, or hear arguments as to why the TV stations themselves don't offer a "watch live now" button on their website, thereby allowing anyone to watch their live broadcast over the internet
- at any time of the day, any day of the week, regardless what TV show is airing?
How can the broadcasters or TV stations claim any sort of harm or interference by Aereo if they themselves don't even offer direct web-viewing of their live broadcasts?
Are ALL TV broadcasters of the same mind when it comes to Aereo? Or do some independants or small networks (ION, various Christian TV stations) welcome Aereo and actually desire to have someone like Aereo take on the infrastructure and bandwidth costs to distribute their OTA broadcasts over the internet?
What if I install residential TV antennas for a living, but instead of selling you the antenna and charging for installation, I install the antenna and charge you $10 a month for you to be able to watch OTA to the extent that your location allows for it. I even throw in a digital PVR for you to use. Should I be paying some sort of cut to the TV stations that my customers are watching?
That's a straw argument. Aereo is clearly not taking measures to ONLY serve people that they know live in a pocket that can't receive (some/many/most) OTA signals.
And the TV stations themselves could offer a direct "watch live" feature on their website (we know that all TV stations have a web-presence of one sort or another). Why isin't anyone asking why they don't do that? That would kill Aereo's reason for existance immediately.
I'm in Canada (Ontario) so our OTA landscape is somewhat different.
I can tell you that, for some reason, cities of 400k+ people in Canada is lucky to have their own local, independant TV station, let alone a station (not a re-transmitter) for each major network (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WB, etc).
In the US you can have cities half that size that have a station for each network, one or two independents, with each of them broadcasting their own version of a morning show and 6 pm and 11 pm news. And you will probably have at least 1 station with it's own news helecopter. Outside of Toronto there probably isin't any Canadian TV station with a helicopter. I don't know what it is about the economics of network TV and local TV stations that leads to this disparity.
When it comes to reception of OTA in Canada, the main goal is to be able to receive US TV stations. In a city like Windsor (Ontario) that is extremely easy (I don't live in Windsor, but it was my home town until I went to university).
That is a logical argument, but it doesn't explain why TV stations don't allow people to "watch live" on their website.
Ok - If I put up an antenna, what addition features does the antenna give me beyond the local programming?
Ok, hold it right there.
Blame the consumer electronics industry in the US for not offering the equivalent of a digital (ATSC) vcr, because that's what people used (NTSC VCR) to use for time-shifting when they were served by OTA.
It's not the responsibility of the broadcaster to offer time-shifting - it's up to the consumer to obtain their own time-shifting hardware.
Placeshifting?
As in - I'm in New York, and I want to watch Los Angeles KCAL (CBS Channel 9) right now?
I thought that Aereo's model (as we understood it) did not allow for that.
The 800 lb gorilla in the room is asking:
- why don't consumers have the choice of a cell phone with ATSC tuner?
- why don't consumers have the choice of a digital VCR with ATSC tuner?
- why don't TV stations allow internet viewers to "watch live" ?
Did the supreme court ask any of those questions?
Aereo is a rube-goldberg way to address the STRATEGIC shortcoming of the consumer electronics market and the fact that tv stations themselves, for some reason, do not allow viewability of their live broadcast stream over the internet.
I think that the supreme court should side with Aereo, because clearly there is anti-competitive collusion going on in this marketplace and Aereo is one way to fight it.
They didn't say in the article I read but I assume it's easy enough to do. Besides, it's FREE OTA TV - why would someone want to steal it? It's not like we're talking about "Game of Thrones" or "Breaking Bad."
I'm going to bet they have some methodology and that the incidence of NYC people wanting to watch LA TV is pretty darn low. I'll bet data latency and the number of hops it takes to reach the user's device would give them some clues. But even if there's "exchanging" how exactly is an advertising-sponsored TV broadcast hurt by being exposed to more viewers and potential customers of the advertisers? In court, to recover damages, you have to show an injury. Where's the injury and to whom here?
Mostly I am refuting the contention that everyone in New York City, etc. can get perfect reception with rabbit ears. I'll readily agree there are many other different reasons to have an Aereo account. But there's nothing Aereo does that we couldn't do ourselves with a PVR and a PC on the net. Make what they did illegal and a lot of things that are perfectly legal for private viewers to do now will be in jeopardy - a sentiment expressed by Justice Breyer, IIRC.
The Betamax case long ago established that mechanisms like the VCR that hadn't been invented when the TV broadcast system was created were nonetheless legal to use. It's a transmission you're entitled to receive for free "placeshifted" to a different location and/or time. That seems to be legal, according to many experts in the field. It's important to remember that a lot of rules and regulations came with the award of free public RF spectrum to TV broadcasters - something they seem eager to forget. You can bet if they could figure a way to charge you for each person that views their transmission on your TV, they would. Fortunately Federal law precludes that with the private/public performance test.
Got any citations? I have no idea what part of the market they comprise but the problem of bad reception surfaces again and again in amicus briefs, news articles and Aereo's PR materials. I have to assume it's a legitimate problem but I couldn't say what percent of their customers chose it for that reason. It's not so unbelievable because *many* people subscribe to basic cable which is basically OTA channels retransmitted. I'm one of them.
That is something I know to be true, but what the CAT/SAT people fear is that Aereo is enough for some people to be willing to cut the cord on the other services. If I had it, I might ditch Comcast basic because Aereo provides mostly the same channels (I'd lose public access, WGN and C-Span) AND a DVR plus streaming for $8. If I am willing to wait, Netflix usually has anything else I want and for far less than it would cost via cable.
What interests me more is that in the markets where Aereo operates, cable rates have fallen dramatically. The effect of *true* competition. For that reason alone (although there are many others) I hope Aereo prevails. There are remarkably few viable alternative to CATV and internet in many markets except for one or two providers. Only big cities typically offer more than two or three. That's not enough competition to have a positive effect for consumers. They're stuck in a "take or leave it" mode.
That may, in the end, be exactly what happens should the court decide for Aereo. The laws concerning this are immensely complicated and as you said elsewhere, a valid loophole is often good enough to force the Supremes to rule in a way people didn't expect. The problem is that I believe the cable companies are defined specifically in the law and would have to pay anyway. I haven't (nor will I!) read the 500 page law that covers just one aspect of this case to find out.
I think it's very possible that the Supremes will have to let Aereo live not for themselves, but because a ruling against them could seriously upset many well-established cloud-based systems. They often do such things with an admonition to Congress to rewrite the laws in a more specific (and sometimes more constitutional) way. The decision's a long way off because it's such a complicated one and even the Clinton appointees on the bench, reputed to be the Court's IP and copyright specialists, don't see eye to eye. I think Congress erred with retransmission fees and those chickens are coming home to roost in the Aereo case.
What makes you think it's easy to control where one watches via the internet? They obviously can't stop you from giving access to your friends in LA, so they can watch NY, etc. In fact, one of the whole selling points of Aero was that you can watch what you'd normally watch with an antenna anywere you go, eg you can watch NYC while on vacation in Europe.
So they can watch the OTA locals from some other city where they don't live. How many people want to do that, IDK. But apparently it's a key thing that is illegal if you do it and the broadcasters have their shorts in a knot over it. Otherwise Aero would just allow anyone to sign up to watch NYC from anywhere. As I understand it and I think you agree, Aero won't let you do that. And I say there is no real way to control what one is apparently allowed to do versus what they can do. If you live in LA, you can't sign up to watch OTA NYC via Aero. But if I sign up in NYC, and my buddy signs up in LA, then we can share access and easily do what it's apparently illegal to do and there is now way Aero can stop it.
IDK which laws apply, what the penalties are. But obviously Aero is worried about it being a real problem, or they would let someone in LA or Europe sign-up to watch NYC.
I agree 100% with that.
I'll readily agree there are many
Maybe, but it depends on what specific points the ruling relies on.
I don't think it's that simple. You could view the OTA signal going into a cable system as just being placeshifted, but somehow the cable companies lost that one and are paying huge fees to the broadcasters to put on their cable what you can watch for free with an antenna.
It's important to
When the switch to ATSC was taking place, there was concern about how many people might not be able to receive it, so there was discussion about how many it might affect, etc. There was only about 15% of TV viewers who were receiving via antenna at that time. If that's the total, you'd have to believe that the number who would want to just receive that but can't with just an antenna is likely to be just a few perecent of the market. That could still be a business model for Aero, but it's not much of the total market. I haven't seen any breakdown on what percent of cable customers just get the minimal OTA type package.
Part of that is there are some people who could put up an antenna, but because of where they are located, it's not easy. Maybe it takes a roof antenna, and they are in a rental. Maybe they are in an apt and the apt only has cable, etc. But there are also roadblocks to Aero. If I sign up for Aero, I'm sure I can instantly watch it on my PC. But how do I get it to my 50" TV? I guess you can stream it via Roku or something, but it's another challenge to figure out for someone that has cable access that already works.
Interesting. I saw cable companies were on your list of folks before the SC, but which side are they on? I would have thought they might be on the side of Aero, hoping that the SC would nullify the ability of the broadcasters to charge them for sending the OTA stuff down the cable.
If I had it, I might ditch Comcast basic because Aereo
You have a cite that shows that and that Aero is the cause? IDK a single person who has Aero or even knows what it is. I'd be shocked that they could have had any real impact on the cable companies. I sure wouldn't be dropping rates on the huge segment of my business that most people want, to stop a tiny percent who only want OTA from going away.
For that
I'd agree that Aero winning would most likely be a good thing. I say most likely, because it's so complex that I can't forsee all the possible repurcussions.
I thought that someone on Aereo's side (maybe Aereo itself) was arguing for both time-shifting AND place-shifting as something they allow that OTA consumers no longer have the ability to do.
Place-shifting to me means being able to watch distant OTA channels that I wouldn't normally be able to receive with an antenna.
I'm sure many people on vacation or while travelling would love to watch their local TV news from back home. And Aereo allows it to be PVR'd so they can watch it at their conveinence.
I believe that is correct, because that is what Aero is doing, so they better be arguing for it.
I'm pretty sure to Aero it means that you can place-shift only what you could receive OTA at your your traditional viewing location. If you live in the NYC area, you can watch that anywhere. But you can't watch LA. How they then handle people who have multiple homes, or say a business presence in another city, IDK. For example, if you live in NYC but are regularly in business in LA and your company has an office there, then what? That's why I was saying IDK how they can really control that.
If that kind of thing was available for free, I'd probably use it while on vacation once in awhile. But I wouldn't pay $8 a month to be able to do it the few times that I actually would. Actually, while on vacation, two things happen. One, I'm less interested in TV because there is a lot more to do. Second, if I'm in Europe, it's interesting to see the news that's there and available on the hotel TV for free to get a different perspective. And I have a Tivo, so any series I'm following is there when I get back.
Place shifting apparently doesn't mean what we think.
Or, Aereo doesn't really claim anything other than prohibition of viewing when it comes to knowning where you are:
--------------
formatting link
It works eerily well, though at the moment it's only up and running in the New York City DMA, or "designated market area." That's a funny story, too. Basically, Aereo uses FCC maps to determine the maximum perimeter around the New York City metropolitan area from which someone with a typical residential TV antenna on her roof would be able to pick up over-the-air signals from New York City.
If the customer ventures outside that range, her phone's GPS or wi-fi systems will eventually detect that fact, and Aereo will dutifully cut off reception. (So, for instance, some parts of the Hamptons get reception, some don't.) Since it's ordinarily not possible to receive New York's over-the-air signals with an antenna beyond a certain distance, Aereo imposes analogous, if artificial, limitations on its users.
----------------
Perhaps if you have an Aereo account, and if you are located in (or visit, travel to) ANY area (designated market area) that Aereo serves, you can watch the TV channels in that area, regardless the physical home address that Aereo has on file for you.
The dependency on GPS is interesting - and telling. It says that Aereo is targeting the cell phone as their primary display device - and they think it's a growth opportunity.
Well we now know that if you're paying Aereo $14 a month, you can't use it when you travel or visit most of planet earth outside of some very small geographical areas.
Apparently the Slingbox models currently being sold (350/500) DO NOT have antenna/cable inputs (ie - no tuner of any sort) but an older model (Slingbox HD) did.
And since we're talking about "placeshifting" ...
formatting link
----------- ...Frustratingly, the rest of the world seems to have a lot more OTA DVR options than the US.
1/13/2011
formatting link
-------------
formatting link
Sling Media Slingbox PRO-HD, 1080i, ATSC Tuner, On-Screen Remote Control (Refurb.) $120 Shipped
How about if it's a PC with no GPS? Can they always tell where you are anyway? I would think there are services that you can pass through to make it look like your internet presence is somewhere other than where you are physically located.
(So, for instance, some parts of the Hamptons get
I don't see them saying they are dependent on GPS. They clearly say you can watch Aero on your PC.
Yes, I was wrong on that point. That would seem to greatly diminish it's usefullness. I'd be a lot more likely to use an Aero like service to watch home channels when out of the area. Even then, it wouldn't be something I'd pay for.
So then it sounds like Slingbox came to the same odd conclusion. Which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. You can hook up a slingbox without a tuner at your home, use an external ATSC tuner, and watch that OTA from anywhere and it's OK. But if they put the tuner inside, then it's violating some law?
They know where they are streaming content to because someone has to sign in to get the feed. I think it's really a trivial process to insure *for the most part* that their signal doesn't reach outside the broadcast area. That's central to a pillar of their case - that they are NOT like a cable operator who streams video from all over the country. Look for "traceroute" tools on Google and you can see how easy it is to figure out where someone is:
TraceRoute from Network-Tools.com to 24.3.130.170 [c-24-3-130-170.hsd1.pa.comcast.net]
You can see where the data is going and how long it takes to get there. I really have no doubt that they are able to keep the majority of their data within the geographic boundary they've chosen.
If they disallow proxy servers and keep an eye on latency and number of hops to the target, I think it's rather trivial of them to tailor the service area to the broadcast "envelope." Could people get around it? Yes, but once again, it's OTA *FREE* TV and not premium content so the incentive to steal is way, way less than with "Game of Thrones." Nothing would stop anyone from making a DVD of tonight's OTA broadcast in NYC and mailing it to LA. So it seems Aereo is being exceptionally cautious to conform to the concept of them merely "repeating" OTA broadcasts to those that are entitled.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.