1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

Broadcasters take their case against Aereo to the Supreme Court & Win

Discussion in 'Internet Streaming Services' started by Athlon646464, Oct 11, 2013.

  1. Nov 4, 2013 #81 of 196
    kenglish

    kenglish Icon

    973
    2
    Oct 2, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    AEREO must gave some special patents on genetic manipulation, too.
    They'd have to breed some very, very small machinists, to have them crawl inside there and "tune" those antennas to different channels every time.
    FILTERS could be used to change the tuning of each receiver, but that would be the same technology that's been used for decades, in TV sets and Cable TV processors.
     
  2. Nov 4, 2013 #82 of 196
    bobcamp1

    bobcamp1 Icon

    896
    1
    Nov 8, 2007
    Thanks for doing this! I was going to pull up their patents this weekend, but you beat me to it.

    They work exactly the way I thought they would work. The antenna is an array (it's in the title of the patent), and each element within it is addressable. That's not really a new idea. But the proper definition of "antenna" would be the entire array. You need the effects of the entire array to get a decent signal from any of its individual elements. An individual element cannot get a decent enough signal on its own.

    So customers are sharing an antenna and are paying to access a tiny bit of it.

    Whether that has any bearing on the larger issue at hand depends on how "receiving" and "rebroadcasting" are defined.

    Also, note that no one can copy Aereo's design without paying them a royalty. If the royalty is more (or even slightly less) than the rebroadcast fees, what's the point?
     
  3. Nov 4, 2013 #83 of 196
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,153
    546
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    How do you know the latter?
     
  4. Nov 4, 2013 #84 of 196
    bobcamp1

    bobcamp1 Icon

    896
    1
    Nov 8, 2007
    Physics. And I read the patent. Isolation is not mentioned at all in the patent, and the fact they use the word "array" all the time strongly implies that each element isn't designed to get the signal on its own.

    There are several antenna arrays, and each array is further divided into groups. Each group is tuned for one specific channel, though there may be multiple groups assigned to a specific channel across multiple arrays. When you request to tune into channel A, you dynamically get assigned an element that belongs to the group that is already tuned into channel A. If you change to channel B, then the element you were using is released (but stays tuned to channel A) and you are dynamically assigned an element to a group that was already tuned to channel B. Element assignment is based on several factors including RSSI. This allows them to cherry-pick the best elements for use, which means there are elements that could be sacrificial.

    The patent does its typical "patent thing" and also covers other similar-but-not-implemented implementations, but theirs is most likely the first one mentioned in the patent because it has the most detail and other patents (including mine) are written like that. It does cover the implementation of one element permanently assigned to a user, though doesn't say how well it would work. It also says that each array can have different sized elements, which would address James Long's and my concern over how each element could cover the three different bands on its own (it can't, but doesn't have to. One could buy or lease three different-sized elements or one element that is permanently tuned for each TV station).
     
  5. Nov 4, 2013 #85 of 196
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    44,942
    872
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    They are trying to push their claim with "individually addressable elements", "separate processing pipelines" and "individually recorded content". I'd love to run a packet sniffer on the internal network to see how everything stays dedicated to the individual.
     
  6. Nov 4, 2013 #86 of 196
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    44,942
    872
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    The legal definition needs to open up to be technology free ... otherwise FIOS could retransmit any station anywhere without permission or payment.

    That is the theory ... but there is a lot more shared resources in the Aereo model than with individually owned and operated antenna / tuner / recorder setups.

    The broadcasters will NEVER be 100% happy with any arrangement where their signal is retransmitted. But looking at it realistically, "hosting" in the same market (not violating distribution rules and blackouts) would probably be permitted by the courts ... and a Sling / Hopper combination would have both the permission and payment that comes with a subscription to the service. The channels can charge DISH for such a rebroadcast. Aereo isn't paying the stations.

    Other than the integration with some DISH products Sling is a separate product that is owned and operated by the consumer. In the battle over Aereo the broadcasters have attacked Sling (claiming that the rights they sold DISH to rebroadcast their signals to homes does NOT include devices outside the home).

    I'm not sure how this case will end ... and how much of a landmark it will be. It has the potential to remove a lot of restrictions on broadcast retransmission or to add further restrictions. Stay tuned ...
     
  7. Nov 4, 2013 #87 of 196
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,153
    546
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    Stay tuned on a single tuner or on an array?!! :)

    Very interesting stuff this is!
     
  8. Jan 10, 2014 #88 of 196
    trdrjeff

    trdrjeff Icon

    814
    5
    Dec 3, 2007
    SCOTUS has agreed to hear the case :)
     
  9. Jan 10, 2014 #89 of 196
    inkahauts

    inkahauts DIRECTV A-Team

    21,532
    958
    Nov 13, 2006
    Excellent.
     
  10. Jan 10, 2014 #90 of 196
    SayWhat?

    SayWhat? Know Nothing

    6,255
    133
    Jun 6, 2009
    SCOTUS has been pretty much bought and paid for by NAB/MPAA/RIAA and big business in general, so I don't expect a ruling in favor of consumers.
     
  11. Jan 10, 2014 #91 of 196
    Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    Aereo vs. TV networks case will be heard by the Supreme Court

    Other than Aereo's fledgling service, at stake is the ability of broadcasters to charge pay-TV companies for the right to carry their signals. If Aereo wins, there have been indications that cable/satellite services might buy it or build their own version, cutting the broadcasters out of a large sum of cash.

    Full Story Here
     
  12. Jan 10, 2014 #92 of 196
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,136
    27
    Sep 16, 2006
    I wish CBS (and the other networks) would take their content to a "cable only" distribution. That would allow the local broadcasters to innovate a little bit, and offer more locally interesting content, more local news and weather, and mix it up.
     
  13. Jan 10, 2014 #93 of 196
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,240
    28
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    Be careful what you ask for.

    Taking the network content off the local stations might be what kills local broadcasting - so instead of 4-10 independent stations (average) per market - you MIGHT be able to have 1-2 , whose programming will mainly consist of the syndicated shows (like Steve Harvey, Ellen, Maurey Povich, etc.), with SOME locally produced news.
     
  14. Jan 10, 2014 #94 of 196
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,153
    546
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    I am disappointed that PBS appears to have joined the bad guys here.
     
  15. Jan 10, 2014 #95 of 196
    ws_sw

    ws_sw New Member

    11
    1
    Jan 10, 2014
    you realize since 99 when the FCC tried to force all OTA braodcasters to turn over the spectrum and were forces to stop it, there next schemes are these audtions to buy/force spectrum holders to hand over there OTA spectrum. so they can sell it for wireless mbile junk.

    The founder of AERO is a frontman / public face for the FCC who wants to end free tv in this country.
     
  16. Jan 10, 2014 #96 of 196
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,136
    27
    Sep 16, 2006
    Its not free if you have to pay for it. I know of no one, personally, who doesnt have to pay for "Free TV".
     
  17. Jan 11, 2014 #97 of 196
    ws_sw

    ws_sw New Member

    11
    1
    Jan 10, 2014
    you very well knew I was talking about the content aka OTA channels
     
  18. Jan 11, 2014 #98 of 196
    tpm1999

    tpm1999 Legend

    325
    7
    Sep 5, 2006
    It is high-time that the TV-cable-broadcast system is disrupted. This mess that has been going on for decades and must change. It took a near collapse in sales for the music industry to change (and finally accept digital)...unfortunately a collapse of cable/sattellite subscribers is the only thing that will convince them to change.
     
  19. Jan 11, 2014 #99 of 196
    Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,136
    27
    Sep 16, 2006
    Right, and even if it is free with an OTA antenna, I know of no one that doesnt have to pay for it. I get all my OTA channels "free" with my antenna, but both DirecTv and Comcast charge me for them anyway, with no option to "opt out".
     
  20. ws_sw

    ws_sw New Member

    11
    1
    Jan 10, 2014
    Thwy won't admit it besides I have locals available and I do not pay for them / even have them on my Directv system. I was able to opt-out
     

Share This Page