MississippiMan, aka Jerry Hatchett
Christian-Conservative-Author-Geek
www.jerryhatchett.com
blogspot.jerryhatchett.com
www.facebook.com/JerryHatchettAuthor
www.twitter.com/Chop0Matic
Posted on 04/22/2013 10:18:21 AM PDT by MichCapCon
The next wave of television viewing, ironically, may more closely resemble the days of yore when home antennas dotted landscapes both urban and rural. Except this next generation antenna is no larger than a thumb drive that plugs conveniently into a tablet, smartphone or desktop computer.
New technologies have always displaced older technologies much to the chagrin of the latter’s proprietors. Now comes Aereo with a mini-antenna that allows the reception of free, over-the-air broadcasts to anyone with an Internet connection and $8 a month for a subscription fee. For the time being, Aereo services are available only in New York, but the company website promises expansion into 22 new markets, including Detroit.
This development has upset multichannel video programming delivery companies (the cable and satellite companies that bring television signals into homes) and television networks — unlikely bedfellows as the two have locked horns innumerable times in the recent past over retransmission consent fees. Both industries sued to block Aereo, but the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined by a 2-1 vote on April 1 that Aereo violates no copyright or broadcast retransmission laws.
The case — WNET Thirteen v. Aereo Inc. — applies only to New York. Additional court challenges will more than likely occur in other states as Aereo expands into new markets.
While networks and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPD) battled fiercely and threatened innumerable television viewers with blackouts, Aereo quietly developed and implemented technology capable of pulling down transmissions from the sky for rebroadcast to subscribers’ tablets, phones and computers. Note that the company only rebroadcasts free transmissions. No Home Box Office, no Showtime, no premium cable. Just the basic CBS, PBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, Univision and CW networks that are already broadcast for free to television viewers nationwide.
According to Judge Christopher Droney, Second Circuit Court of Appeals:
It is beyond dispute that the transmission of a broadcast TV program received by an individual’s rooftop antenna to the TV in his living room is private, because only that individual can receive the transmission from that antenna, ensuring that the potential audience of that transmission is only one person. Plaintiffs have presented no reason why the result should be any different when that rooftop antenna is rented from Aereo and its signals transmitted over the internet: it remains the case that only one person can receive that antenna’s transmissions. But that hasn’t prevented network executives from threatening to place their broadcasts behind a premium pay wall. On April 8, Fox’s Chase Carey joined the fray by declaring his network is among those considering switching to a pay-TV model.
Among the objections posed by the networks is the ability of Aereo subscribers to fast forward through commercials. This is much the same argument used against digital video recording and Dish's AutoHop technologies.
These challenges, however, seldom identify remote control mute buttons as a hindrance to commercial television viewing. If television networks desire that viewers sit through commercials, they might be better advised to alert advertising agencies to be more "must-see" creative in the campaigns they produce. Give viewers something to watch and talk about and perhaps they’ll watch the commercials as well as network programming.
In the meantime, innovative and creative technology is offering more choices for customers regardless how networks and MVPDs derive their income.
In a press statement, Chet Kanojia, Aereo CEO and founder, remarked that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals "again validates that Aereo's technology falls squarely within the law and that’s a great thing for consumers who want more choice and flexibility in how, when and where they can watch television."
Kanojia continued that the "ruling to uphold Judge Nathan's decision sends a powerful message that consumer access to free to air broadcast television is still meaningful in this country and that the promise and commitment made by the broadcasters to program in the public interest in exchange for the public’s spectrum, remains an important part of our American fabric."
Kanojia's point is valid. The American taxpayer owns the spectrum over which the networks broadcast their programming in the first place. Developing new and innovative technologies to capture broadcasts from public spectrum for delivery to mobile devices and computers is a boon to the U.S. consumer who chooses to either purchase the service or not.
Presumably, this is for people who can't pick up a decent signal with an antenna in their house/apartment.
Why Detroit?
The incredible shrinking city seems like an unnatural choice. Lowering demographics and shrink population means a shrinking customer base.
“What is wrong with Americans? I have a ~$30 dongle with an antenna connection that provides clear reception for local channels; anywhere in the US/Canooggia/MayHeeKo.”
The best I have been able to find for a USB connecting digital TV Tuner (with portable antenna included) for a Windows PC runs about $70. What device/brand are you using.
Of course the one difference may be that the Aero subscription might provide access to broadcast channels beyond what your home-based antenna can pick up.
Tiger Direct. Can’t recall the MFR here at work.
My SIL converted the drivers for Linux about 2 year ago...runs like a champ.
Or other rooms, obviously. I've had as many as three levels of splitters, although you generally need to add an amp to keep up signal strength with that degree of distribution.
I guess I don’t get it.
I pick up 30+ channels with my indoor antenna. If I wanted to watch them on the go, I would plug in my Sling Box, but after awhile, I realized that I wasn’t that interested. When I traveled overseas it was great to watch the local news but now I can get most of that stuff directly from the internet.
Why would the cable companies go ala cart over this? Most people could pick up the locals with rabbit ears if they wanted to and they could watch it for free on mobile devices with a one time purchase of a Sling Box. The big fight is about the locals loosing their monopoly, can’t have somebody on the west coast getting an New York feed and watching blacked out games or games only provided on cable channels locally.
The Sling Box is cloud TV that has been around for a decade. The cable companies had a collective cow when it came out but it did not end up changing the industry.
Cable companies don’t want to go ala cart, it would cut into revinue. Media producers don’t want ala cart because they make a fortune bundling channels. If the media producers provided their programming ala cart, they couldn’t force the cable companies to buy low volume channels and the cable companies don’t want to force unbundling because there would be nothing preventing the media producers from providing their product directly to the consumer. Although they both claim the other is taking advantage of them, they are in a codependent relationship.
In the mean time, neither wants you buying your channels ala cart.
That’s right. It’s exploiting a loophole in the so-called “piracy” laws that say that TiVo-like devices that have antennae built in follow broadcasting laws, not Cable-TV laws. So they stuck non-functional antennae on a USB drive to make recording cable TV legal.
They check your ISP, if it isn’t local, it won’t stream. There are ways to get around this however.
This is really a logical development, because almost everyone has an internet connection and wifi, but many people live in areas with poor RF coverage by broadcast TV. The problem is even worse since the digital TV conversion. All this does is to give people like me, far from the cities, a decent signal for free broadcast TV...commercials and all. $8 a month is not bad compared to building a 100-foot tower.
The mini antenna is at their site, they then digitally stream it to your device. The value would be to someone living in an apartment with high speed internet and no good antenna reception.
The fight is the question of whether they had the right to stream copywrited programming that they do not own or have the license to stream.
It doesn’t record, it streams. They used the both the DVR and Sling Box defenses in court.
My only point was the “antenna” is not an antenna.
First thing is you dont have to worry about the Antenna not in the right position, the rain in the satellite or the dvr during a storm that you loose power.
Cloud is the key since its not at your location but you have exclusive rights to it. If I record Castle you can not watch my Castle recording.You still have access but its like RDP for computers. Cloud is the key.
The issue is I will leave directv and go this route since the channels I use to watch dont have the same programming. Weather Channel is worthless. News channels are to much political.
It is actually an antenna but at the cloud facility. Thats like any other cloud solution. The server is there but you dont have to push the powerbutton someone else at the cloud facility would.
If it’s not receiving radiofrequency waves, it’s not an antenna.
Why not just use rabbit ears? I can do that now for free and receive the same HD channels.
Correct. You have to sit infront of your tv tho.
With this you can watch your local weather alert from you local channel from iPhone or iPad.
The idea is that cloud involves the same concept you draw from you actual home tv but just removes it from your home and places it in the cloud.
I dropped sat service a decade ago. Put an antenna in the attic because the wife didn’t like the rabbit ears. I get 32 channels of perfect video rain or shine. I use a Roku for getting programming similar to satellite, my biggest issue is spotty internet service, no antenna reception.
Currently Directv app require you to be in your home wifi network before you can watch it on your phone.
We might be into a new tv age. Lets say instead of placing a Directv dish on your house, you just get an account to watch the same things but thru the internet.
This will allow you to sign into your directv account wherever and watch on your iPhone.
As long as there is an actual Satellite dish in the area you would be and its yours, you can have an account. No more converters or anything...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.