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

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

  1. Oct 27, 2013 #41 of 196
    JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,408
    52
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    There are valid reasons, but you may not be concerned about them, which in and of itself is perfectly valid. Many cities' local stations would go out of business, though, if there were no protections forcing cable and satellite companies to carry them vs. just importing ABC from New York or Los Angeles.
     
  2. Oct 28, 2013 #42 of 196
    James Long

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

    52,312
    2,665
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Anything that the local station has the RIGHT to transmit outside of their own market ... and that is the big problem. Stations license most of their programming for their own market. Anything network or syndicated can only be retransmitted within the area that the station has licensed.

    Licensing and rights are a pain in the butt. After all of the deletions for stuff that the station CANNOT retransmit outside of their market what are they left with? Local production news and local commercials? Perhaps. But even then there can be limitations. Some of the music and effects used in commercial production is licensed to the station's market.

    You may think it is balderdash ... but licensing is just another thing that stations have to deal with.
     
  3. Oct 28, 2013 #43 of 196
    Mike_TV

    Mike_TV Legend

    158
    2
    Jan 17, 2006
    There are other forums where TV broadcast engineers hang out and post that Aereo technology doesn't exist, it's magic, can't possibly work with such a small antenna per customer and they are fooling everyone. They repel at the fact that someone has invented a better mousetrap and threaten their existing business.
     
  4. Oct 28, 2013 #44 of 196
    James Long

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

    52,312
    2,665
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    That is why there needs to be an independent technical review of the technology ... prove that the one dime sized antenna can actually do what they claim. I don't blame broadcast professionals for being skeptical. They have spent years working with precisely tuned equipment designed for each broadcast channel. As mentioned before, this is either the greatest improvement in TV reception technology or a total fraud.

    Are antennas spaced so closely together truly independent or do they function as an array? How much of the system is independent? Doesn't the server farm create a single point of rebroadcast for Aereo?

    The lawsuit focuses on the core issues of retransmission and storage. Aereo IS retransmitting content they do not own without permission or payment to the copyright owners. Aereo is storing content for later delivery. And they are doing this through servers shared by their subscribers - regardless of how the signals are initially received.
     
  5. Oct 28, 2013 #45 of 196
    Gloria_Chavez

    Gloria_Chavez Godfather

    562
    33
    Aug 11, 2008
    What about the Amazon and Google cloud-based music services? If SCOTUS rules that Aereo's business model is unconstitutional, not only will the Cablevision cloud-based DVR be illegal, but so will cloud-based music lockers.
     
  6. Oct 28, 2013 #46 of 196
    James Long

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

    52,312
    2,665
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    There are two ways to solve that problem ... one is licensing and the other is making it personal storage. Licensing would mean that the service would pay for the privilege of offering stored online content to their customers. This would fit the Amazon or DISH Online model where the rights to offer the content is paid for by the service provider. The same content is shared among all users who pay for access ... and the license fee is paid to the content owner.

    Personal storage would be empty space that the individual customer would fill. Your uploaded content would be separate from my uploaded content. If you wanted something on your cloud player you would have to upload it yourself ... you could not play content I uploaded. It is similar to the home DVR where you cannot play content off of my DVR.

    The content Aereo is offering is not uploaded by individuals to their cloud media server. Aereo places the content on the server. Aereo claims that each copy of the content is recorded from an individual tuner that is not in use for any other user or live viewing. I'd like to see an audit of that claim. The broadcasters stop at the word copy ... Aereo has copied the broadcast to their server. That is enough of a violation in their opinion.

    Cablevision's DVR system is close to what Aereo is doing ... hosted DVR recording. Such a scheme violates the statutory license granted to cable systems for the rebroadcast of television stations. They could do like Amazon does and license the copies they offer. Such a scheme isn't forbidden by law it is simply not allowed under the statutory license. If the station does not object all is well. The stations are objecting to Aereo. All is not well.
     
  7. Oct 28, 2013 #47 of 196
    kenglish

    kenglish Icon

    975
    2
    Oct 2, 2004
    Salt Lake...
    You know....the FCC has a very nice laboratory at Powder Springs, Georgia, just outside of Atlanta.
    I'll bet they'd just love to test out AEREO's antennas and other "discoveries".
     
  8. Oct 28, 2013 #48 of 196
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,187
    1,607
    Nov 13, 2006
    That is why there needs to be an independent technical review of the technology ... prove that the one dime sized antenna can actually do what they claim. I don't blame broadcast professionals for being skeptical. They have spent years working with precisely tuned equipment designed for each broadcast channel. As mentioned before, this is either the greatest improvement in TV reception technology or a total fraud.

    Are antennas spaced so closely together truly independent or do they function as an array? How much of the system is independent? Doesn't the server farm create a single point of rebroadcast for Aereo?

    The lawsuit focuses on the core issues of retransmission and storage. Aereo IS retransmitting content they do not own without permission or payment to the copyright owners. Aereo is storing content for later delivery. And they are doing this through servers shared by their subscribers - regardless of how the signals are initially received.


    I agree test it.

    But..

    I can get a tiny bit part of a paper clip to use as an antenna to grab stations I don't see why it wouldn't work if its located on a spot that has excellent signal strength.

    The bigger question in my mind is how they store what they record.
     
  9. Oct 28, 2013 #49 of 196
    Satelliteracer

    Satelliteracer Hall Of Fame

    3,042
    38
    Dec 6, 2006
    LOL. Yup.
     
  10. Oct 28, 2013 #50 of 196
    JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,408
    52
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    Part of the "magic" of the Aereo antennas is that they are tunable, electrically. They only pick up one channel at a time. When you tune a station, they change the physics of the antenna and it only receives the specific frequency you've requested. It's not like anything you've used prior.


    Amazon and Google (and Apple for that matter) have license agreements with the music companies. Also, Amazon's original service (not sure if they still do it this way) was an upload service, so you would upload your files, and when you listened they served you YOUR files. There was no deduplication or reusing master copies. It was essentially dropbox with a music player built in.
     
  11. Oct 29, 2013 #51 of 196
    bobcamp1

    bobcamp1 Icon

    896
    1
    Nov 8, 2007
    You could also spend money investigating cold fusion or the existence of unicorns, but I'm sure you'd come to the same conclusion. It's a fraud. (At least I HOPE that's your conclusion. :) )

    That antenna isn't large enough nor is it oriented in the correct way to receive both UHF and VHF signals, especially if the signals are coming from various directions. Cell phone antennas are longer than these supposed HD antennas, even though they can be shorter because cell phones operate at higher frequencies. Also, cell phones have multiple antennas, including one for 850 MHz, one for 1900 MHz, one for Wifi (2.4 GHz), one for GPS (1575 MHz), and even a separate diversity antenna which is a secondary receive-only antenna. There is great care taken to isolate the diversity antenna from the primary antenna. Not only is there no effort to isolate each of these tiny Aereo antennas from each other, but HDTV is broadcast at three different frequency bands and I only see one antenna per customer.

    By being near other pieces of metal that may or may not share a connection, that allows inductive and capacitive coupling which basically means the Aereos act just like a large array. It actually IS an array, even if the antennas are not directly connected together, but you'd have to explain advanced RF theory to 12 people who might not have high school degrees, who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty, and who probably hate their cable companies. These technical court cases (like patent infringement) are not about who's right, but about who has the better lawyers.

    The reason the antennas' individuality weren't disproved in court during the injunction hearing was that the plaintiff's expert witness couldn't testify in person, and the court allowed a hugely flawed experiment conducted by Aereo to stand as evidence. I don't expect the plaintiffs to make that mistake again. I like the fact that somebody is trying to work around the broadcasters. But make no mistake the antennas are part of an array, and they act together to pull in the HDTV signals.
     
  12. Oct 29, 2013 #52 of 196
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,187
    1,607
    Nov 13, 2006
    So explain why a small paper clip Works for me? Is it also using nearby structure to create an array?

    I guess the question is if they are totally separate and not connected but only getting signal because there's so many there does tat matter? Or would each have to be able to stand on its own without anything else nearby or a certain distance?

    And how do you know they are pointed wrong? In Los Angeles all but a couple major stations come from the same place. San Diego does use multiple spots. What's to say they don't have multiple arrays for each location there at some point?

    Just curios not trying to argue.
     
  13. Oct 29, 2013 #53 of 196
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,063
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    A paper clip connected directly to the TV's input doesn't need to worry about having enough gain to make it across a 25+ feet coax drop (possibly in the hundreds range if their facility is on a lower floor).
     
  14. Oct 29, 2013 #54 of 196
    JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,408
    52
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    You totally didn't read my post did you?

    The Antennas are very, very near the tuners. Also, they can be small because they electrically tune the antenna to only receive the requested channel. It doesn't have to pick up the entire RF spectrum.
     
  15. Oct 29, 2013 #55 of 196
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    5,391
    1,063
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    I did, did you bother to read mine and everyone elses? Until they have independent testing and verification of that technology, it could easily be just another false claim like their streaming servers, the javascript delay to give the illusion that something is happening in the background, or acting like the live DVR features on their site requires special functionality in the backend despite it being built into the open source flash media player they use that is used by many other sites to provide the same function on their live streams.

    Again I was able to watch MULTIPLE channels at once just by modifying the publishing point in the URL, you admitted that you don't know how streaming servers work, but I do as I work with them for a living and know all of them inside and out. If something is really on command like they claim it does, playback would not begin instantly when using it inside another media player like ffmpeg or a locally hosted installation of the same open source media player, when testing with multiple accounts they wouldn't point to the same publishing point on the same server for the same channel. I would not be able to watch multiple channels at the same time, the same publishing points would not have the same channel months later, it would show a different channel based on whatever the person who is supposidly controlling the tuner on that publishing point is watching or they would not work at all if no one is watching, and the stream I'm watching in an external player would be affected each time I used the live DVR functions on their site if it operated the way they claim it does. The thing is, like bobcamp1 said, getting a jury or a judge to understand all this is hard since most of it would go over their head as like you were speaking a foreign language. especially if you start bringing in the technical terms when they have no IT or broadcasting background.

    It begs the question, if they really made this breakthrough in television reception, especially eliminating the problems that are common with OTA reception in NYC highrises that constantly cause breakups like multipath, weaker signals due to the steel and concrete in the buildings, as well as other sources of interference, why are they spending all this money on legal fees picking fights with broadcasters? They could make millions licensing this technology to manufacturers to integrate into TVs, set tops and PC tuner cards, selling it directly to consumers, along with integrated software so the consumers do the streaming themselves avoiding the costs to set up and maintain the service in each market. Just take a look at all the issues people in the OTA forum or other sites like AVS have when their market has channels on VHF lo, VHF hi and UHF and don't want to or simply can't install a proper solution for whatever reason (they rent, no access to a place to do it like a balcony, their building is behind the times when it comes to OTA and have a VHF or UHF only antenna, or uses old amplifiers that worked with analog but causes too much distortion for digital), this antenna would solve them all if it does what it claims to do.
     
  16. Oct 29, 2013 #56 of 196
    JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,408
    52
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    I did not. I have worked with streaming servers in the past. I stated I did not know the physics behind antennas. Since several news outlets have reported on the tunability of the antennas and they have sworn under oath, I have to take them at their word for the time being. I don't think they would have raised $50 million if it was all a scam.
     
  17. Oct 29, 2013 #57 of 196
    JosephB

    JosephB Icon

    1,408
    52
    Nov 14, 2005
    Birmingham, AL
    Because they're specifically engineered to do what they're doing. They're not designed to be stuck in any TV in any orientation 75 miles away from the transmitters. They rented a specific office space in a specific building with direct line of sight with no buildings between them and the Empire State Building in NYC, for example. They didn't take a bunch of ATI TV Wonders and rabbit ear antennas and set this up. It is possible for people to be smarter than you and think of novel new ways of doing things.
     
  18. Oct 31, 2013 #58 of 196
    bobcamp1

    bobcamp1 Icon

    896
    1
    Nov 8, 2007
    They could license it to cell phone manufacturers, too. Currently the entire back of the HTC One is one giant honking antenna. It would also prevent iPhone users from holding their phone wrong.
     
  19. Oct 31, 2013 #59 of 196
    bobcamp1

    bobcamp1 Icon

    896
    1
    Nov 8, 2007
    But they're not engineered correctly! Since no care is taken to actively isolate the antennas from each other, and they are all trying to receive the same exact signal, they are by definition an antenna array. The antennas, even if they could somehow work individually, would have to be at least 1 foot apart (and probably over 30 feet apart for the VHF HD band) to ensure some amount of isolation (I'll have to calculate that better later). The pictures I see show the antennas right next to each other.

    Besides, the single office building trick may work in NYC, but I bet other cities have the antenna towers scattered around, usually nowhere near any office buildings. The other problem that NYC has is multipath, which is even present with line-of-sight, but believe it or not an antenna array would help solve that.

    You're basically telling me that Aereo has developed something like a warp drive. I think it might be possible, but not with our current understanding of physics.
     
  20. Nov 1, 2013 #60 of 196
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    25,187
    1,607
    Nov 13, 2006
    I have to admit I have never heard that an antenna causes interference in another antenna if it's close to it.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements