Cut the cord...well almost

[Rico]

I don't agree with Chris/X above - this isn't the same as someone recording satellite radio. Satellite is not broadcast publicly for free. You have to pay a fee. All Aereo was doing was taking free broadcast tv and offering a cloud based antenna and recording service to their customers. All the commercials were still in the broadcasts. I tested it for three months and it was no different than if I had my own antenna and a DVR. Was Aereo being a bit tricky/inventive - definitely. But, in my opinion this is a case of the established companies having too much power and control. TV is heading in this direction to a much more self-serve model and broadcasters better learn to accept that idea and find a way to work in that arena.

[Bromptonboy]

I am not sure I understand the network's objections - since as you say the commercial content is still being delivered to the end user - just as if they were using a locally installed digital antenna.

[Rico]

I am not sure I understand the network's objections - since as you say the commercial content is still being delivered to the end user - just as if they were using a locally installed digital antenna.

I think it comes down to them thinking that someone else is redistributing their content and they "think" they are not making money off it.  But this is the same naive attitude that the movie & music industry had about selling or streaming digital content.  In a way, Aereo put more eyes on their commercials - especially in more remote areas or with people that live in say an apartment where an antenna might not be possible.  Silly, greedy people.

[Bromptonboy]

Right - since Aereo is only relaying the content which the networks are already distributing over the air with commercials.  Not like they are editing out commercials or adding their own.  Just a cloud based antenna.  I can see the cable companies not particularly liking this idea - but not the networks.

[Ktrek]

I'm actually with the supreme court on this. This has nothing to do with fighting the big guys, Aereo thought they would be clever and bypass established broadcast and copyright laws. At the end of the day, they were using broadcast transmissions without wanting to pay the fee, but while charging the consumer. To put it in perspective, it was no different than creating a company that broadcasts and records satellite music or movies and charging for that while not paying the content providers.

Also, this has zero to do with cable companies. They would have profited from a ruling in Aereo's favor. Cable companies and Satellite providers actually pay the broadcast companies to have the channels in their line up. The cable companies didn't have a dog in this fight and stealing no matter how creatively it's done is never in the interest of free economy.

So, you're position on this then is that if Aaron's Furniture rents me an HD antenna and a DVR for $8.99 a month they are in violation of broadcast copyright laws? What difference does the size of the antenna make? and what difference is it if the antenna I rent is 5 ft long in my attic or two inches in a server room in downtown Dallas? I achieve the exact same results. It seems to me that it should then be illegal to use anything that allows you access to free airwaves. Who loses here? The advertisers on the local TV stations? No...their audience is now larger. The local TV stations who are already broadcasting their signal? No! The only potential loser is the cable and satellite companies who see the loss of their very expensive service to a company that was providing an economical (cheap) alternative. 

[X]

I'm actually with the supreme court on this. This has nothing to do with fighting the big guys, Aereo thought they would be clever and bypass established broadcast and copyright laws. At the end of the day, they were using broadcast transmissions without wanting to pay the fee, but while charging the consumer. To put it in perspective, it was no different than creating a company that broadcasts and records satellite music or movies and charging for that while not paying the content providers.

Also, this has zero to do with cable companies. They would have profited from a ruling in Aereo's favor. Cable companies and Satellite providers actually pay the broadcast companies to have the channels in their line up. The cable companies didn't have a dog in this fight and stealing no matter how creatively it's done is never in the interest of free economy.

So, you're position on this then is that if Aaron's Furniture rents me an HD antenna and a DVR for $8.99 a month they are in violation of broadcast copyright laws? What difference does the size of the antenna make? and what difference is it if the antenna I rent is 5 ft long in my attic or two inches in a server room in downtown Dallas? I achieve the exact same results. It seems to me that it should then be illegal to use anything that allows you access to free airwaves. Who loses here? The advertisers on the local TV stations? No...their audience is now larger. The local TV stations who are already broadcasting their signal? No! The only potential loser is the cable and satellite companies who see the loss of their very expensive service to a company that was providing an economical (cheap) alternative. 

Aereo is rebroadcasting copyrighted material. Broadcasters are not getting paid for redistribution. Cable and satellite are paying the fees. Aereo wasn't.

Like it or not. CBS was pretty clear that they would shift to a fully cable station and cease over the air transmissions to protect their content. The difference is that Aereo is charging you to broadcast their content to bypass the solution that the networks have already provided. You can get their content from Hulu or from their own website.

Again, Cable and Satellite have no dog in this fight. Had Aereo won, it would have established precedence for bypassing the broadcast fees and allowed the cable and satellite companies to pocket an additional six bucks or so per users, I believe that this is the current leasing free to access all of the "free" networks.

You want to see this in terms of winners and losers, but it's not about winners and losers. It's about broadcasters saying enough is enough. You say that the fee is pretty cheap and it is for some people, but some people still can only afford free tv. When CBS threatens to pull their network instead of letting their content get taken, then this becomes much bigger than a few people wanting to pay for Aereo. It becomes one or more fewer tv stations for those people that only have free tv.

I spent quite some time looking into this case and the possible ramifications and when weighed against potential risks, there was only one position to have.

Cable and satellite had nothing at all to fear from Aereo. If someone only wanted the local stations, they wouldn't have cable or satellite. If someone was only getting Cable or Satellite for the local stations, they are probably a bit foolish. 

http://www.cnet.com/news/cbs-chief-says-network-could-go-all-internet-if-aereo-wins/

[Rico]

Still don't agree. Aereo did exactly what a Slingbox or a Tivo plus an antenna can do. Record over the air content and allow you to watch it when you want.

[Rico]

You cord cutters might want to look into this...

http://itvmediaplayer.com/

[sheldor]

Here's a review...not that great - a little scammy

http://www.uberreview.com/2012/09/itv-media-player-free-premium-tv-review.htm

I think eventually most channels will be services like hulu which we can get on the roku.

[Jobydrone]

HBO announced stand alone service (presumably HBO Go subscription or something similar) untethered from cable packages starting in 2015.  Pretty exciting news for all you cord cutters.

[Bromptonboy]

HBO announced stand alone service (presumably HBO Go subscription or something similar) untethered from cable packages starting in 2015.  Pretty exciting news for all you cord cutters.

Wow!  That was the last piece of the puzzle for me.  Can you imagine what Comcast and the other cable providers must be doing to try and stop this?

[X]

HBO announced stand alone service (presumably HBO Go subscription or something similar) untethered from cable packages starting in 2015.  Pretty exciting news for all you cord cutters.

Wow!  That was the last piece of the puzzle for me.  Can you imagine what Comcast and the other cable providers must be doing to try and stop this?

probably nothing because they are projecting it to cost more than netflix. If you are paying for hbo, netflix, and hulu, you are already paying cable prices, it's not a threat to cable since it will probably be cheaper on cable packages.

[Ktrek]

If the cable companies would allow packages where you can select say ten channels for a reasonable price they would regain my business. I'd pay maybe $20 a month for my choice of ten channels. Until then I'm satisfied with streaming content only. I haven't had TV for close to ten years now I guess and I don't miss it one bit. If you guys saw the library I have amassed by taking my cable money and investing it in DVDs and Blu-Rays you would be amazed how large a collection you can achieve and have what you want to watch when you want to watch it.

Kevin

[Bromptonboy]

YEs, with ala'carte channel selection I would stay.  I only use about maybe 20 channels - as you mentioned. 

[Bromptonboy]

Not to be outdone by HBO:

http://deadline.com/2014/10/cbs-launches-subscription-streaming-service-852895/