 japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | still 100% Apple dependent. Bad emergence sequencing to not have Android and MSWindows support yet. TV viewing habits aren't easy to change and early adopter enthusiasm is a powerful behavior change agent for the rest of us. All this wonderful MsM/legal buzz and only Apple users can even test the service. Aereo's legal battle needs to appear like a hindrance to consumer demand and yet they're disallowing most consumers from becoming their voice of demand. I think that's a major strategic blunder. |
|
| said by jap:.....All this wonderful MsM/legal buzz and only Apple users can even test the service. Aereo's legal battle needs to appear like a hindrance to consumer demand and yet they're disallowing most consumers from becoming their voice of demand. I think that's a major strategic blunder.
Why is it a strategic blunder? Longtime broadcast foe Diller knows he's on very thin ice legally. Any gung-ho platform investment isn't worth the risk. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Charter
| said by JasonOD :said by jap:.....All this wonderful MsM/legal buzz and only Apple users can even test the service. Aereo's legal battle needs to appear like a hindrance to consumer demand and yet they're disallowing most consumers from becoming their voice of demand. I think that's a major strategic blunder.
Why is it a strategic blunder? Longtime broadcast foe Diller knows he's on very thin ice legally. Any gung-ho platform investment isn't worth the risk. hes not on "thin ice" at all. all you are doing is renting a remote antenna in a so called "ideal" location, and then having a TiVO and slingbox attached to it. whats so illegal about that? This would be like me using my neighbors roof for an antenna, running the cable back to my house, and then paying him a "maintenence" fee. Diller knows hes got a legit service, that is totally legal as long as each person has their "own" antenna, and DVR HDD space(since network DVRs are legal, all they need is their own HDD space). |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Millenicom
 ·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| Aereo New Pricing. I read the fine print and they have a whopper of a problem. They stated that the antenna you want to access, "your" antenna, may not be available due to others using it. One of the arguments they have used to keep the broadcasters at bay is that the antenna and the DVR are almost totally controlled by the subscriber leasing the antenna and DVR. If "my" antenna can be used by another subscriber, that argument is false. These guys are going to get put out of business due to the nonsensical arguments they present as justification for not paying content providers or retransmission consent fees. If you say in court that your service works one way, but have terms of service that say it operates significantly differently, how well do you think you will do when the broadcasters show that you are lying in court? |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
| its a leased antenna, who cares which one you get when you are requesting one? Why should one have to pay to stream something they can get for themselves for a reasonable cost(TV tuner card, antenna in a good location, and a slingbox, and a DVR program of some sort). Your a premium member, I wonder which broadcaster paid for your premium membership? seriously, just because it can be used by someone else does not mean that you will be using it at the same time. Their argument is that each sub uses 1 antenna at 1 time. Its legal. Again, its the same premise as me doing all that same shit for myself(DVR, slingbox, remote antenna, ect). I can pick it up over the air for free, thus, I dont have to pay retrans fees. If they didnt want it free, sell it to a cable premium network. Its free OTA, why should they get a payment for something any one of us could do anyways? |
|
Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| free alternatives.. check out barrydriller.com once you register you can watch OTA for free.. now cable companies can't use buying broadcast basic to antenna viewers who can't get a good signal!
we'll see how long this lasts b4 the big companies go after these startups.. abc, nbc, cbs, fox etc.. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to Chubbysumo
Re: still 100% Apple dependent. So if he gets 1 million people in NY to sign up he's going to have 1 million antennas? |
|
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| reply to Chubbysumo
Re: Aereo New Pricing. I did not get compensation from a broadcast television to pay for my membership. I actually think that OTA owners who went the re-transmission route set themselves up for extortion from the big networks. All the OTA owners should have stayed must carry, which would have forced the networks to face the need to cut content production costs earlier. That being said, the OTA owners have the right to demand re-transmission consent fees as long as that is the standard way they deal with cable system operators in the area.
If there was no way for my access to be cut off by other subscribers normal activities, than the business model resembles the use of remote antennas connected to DVRs that the I control exclusively. If I run antenna cables to a neighbor's roof mounted antennas and feed the signal to my DVRs, then I am in control of the devices at any time. If the DVRs are located in his house, but I have total control over them, then that is similar to them being in my house. The problem arises when the DVRs and antennas are shared among perhaps one hundred households and there is some limitation on how many households can access the DVRs or antennas simultaneously. That is not total control over the device and is not similar to what I would have in my own house with my own antennas. I have seen plenty of roof mounted OTA antenna systems designed to serve apartment buildings. I have never seen one that has a limitation on how many of those apartments can access the antenna simultaneously. Yes, it takes amplifiers and proper splitters to make it work, but it is doable.
Aereo wants to make money in the TV market by being a virtual cable system operator for OTA programming using IPTV. Nifty idea with little infrastructure requirements or costs. After all the final signal has to go over the subscribers ISP access, which they must pay for, including overages. Aereo only has to connect to the internet. It is fairly easy to buy enterprise level internet access in major cities. The problem is they have to make the experience of operating OTA TV extremely similar to what a regular homeowner or apartment dweller would experience using owned or shared assets without any limitations on the numbers of simultaneous users. That is the only way I see they can get out of paying re-transmission consent fees.
Again, I think re-transmission consent fees are a dumb idea, and that ALL the OTA owners should have stayed must carry. But the laws and regulations are what they are, and Aereo needs to pay up, unless they eliminate the possible restrictions. |
|
 XiodenPremium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1 | reply to Chubbysumo
Re: still 100% Apple dependent. A company not that long ago tried streaming DVD's over the internet under the guise of "One DVD and one DVD Player per stream". Said company was sued and isn't offering that service anymore. |
|
TheGhostPremium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL | reply to BF69
said by BF69:So if he gets 1 million people in NY to sign up he's going to have 1 million antennas?
Correct, or at least in theory. Each antenna is around the size of a dime. |
|
japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
1 edit | reply to JasonOD
said by JasonOD :Diller knows he's on very thin ice legally. Any gung-ho platform investment isn't worth the risk. Agreed ... but where's the platform hurdle? Playback is in web browser (HTML5) and there's periodic geo-locale verification to maintain stream. Not alot going on here.
When I posted this I assumed HLS wasn't widely supported outside Apple but it is. It's even native in Android as of Honeycomb.
Possibly Aereo's objectives are something other than what they pretend. I don't rule that out. It's curios how they're going about things. Wish I knew more about iOS. |
|
| reply to tmc8080
Re: free alternatives.. said by tmc8080:check out barrydriller.com once you register you can watch OTA for free.. now cable companies can't use buying broadcast basic to antenna viewers who can't get a good signal!
we'll see how long this lasts b4 the big companies go after these startups.. abc, nbc, cbs, fox etc..
Is that Kato Kaelin? |
|
| reply to davidhoffman
Re: Aereo New Pricing. »www.multichannel.com/article/480···vice.php
Aereo, a startup whose backers include media mogul Barry Diller, is launching a subscription service in New York City that provides live broadcast TV channels and network-based DVR over the Internet for $12 per month, pitched as an alternative to cable TV -- a proposition that may earn a legal fight from the broadcast industry.
Aereo's service is based on dime-size antennas. In New York, these are housed in giant arrays somewhere in Brooklyn, which receive over-the-air TV signals and transcode them in real time for delivery to Apple iPhones and iPads and other devices, without the need for a set-top box.
The company's legal justification: Each antenna is dedicated to an individual Aereo subscriber, so the service isn't subject to the same retransmission laws that pay-TV operators are. Similarly, the DVR service -- which provides up to 40 hours of storage per account -- allocates dedicated storage to each user so as not run afoul of copyright laws.
As Diller, chairman of Internet company IAC, put it: "Every little antenna essentially has a consumer's name on it." He spoke at Aereo's launch press conference Tuesday at IAC's Manhattan headquarters.
Aereo founder and CEO Chet Kanojia, asked whether the company expects to be on the receiving end of litigation, responded, "We understand that there will be challenges... We are building a transformative business and there will be challenges."
Only a fool would invest in this flaky company. Their whole business plan rests solely on an untested legal theory that is partially based on a lie and as time passes their story of how the devices work changes.
There is no way they're "housing" dedicated receivers and antennas for each of their subscribers. Once the feds (and lawyers) start looking into their operation and see the discrepancies, the company will go belly up like megaupload and fulltiltpoker. |
|
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to TheGhost
Re: still 100% Apple dependent. said by TheGhost:said by BF69:So if he gets 1 million people in NY to sign up he's going to have 1 million antennas?
Correct, or at least in theory. Each antenna is around the size of a dime. It's ridiculous the amount of hoops that new companies have to jump through today, just to avoid all the legal pitfalls that are holding back innovation.
Think of the kind of services that we could have if it wasn't for a sea of red tape drowning them. |
|
| reply to TheGhost
I hope not and hold out that by that time the light of day is shown and he can use one antenna per city for all subscribers.
It is not like he is taking a signal, decoding it, encoding it and then rebroadcasting it. He is simply taking a signal and sending it on down the line. |
|
| reply to Xioden
As was this company, but it won it's first round. Lets see how it all plays out in the end though. |
|
| reply to Rekrul
Re: still 100% Apple dependent. If by "red tape" you mean "laws designed to stop people from taking copyrighted content and reselling it without paying the content provider", then yes. |
|
| reply to Xioden
They were not just sued. They were found to be in violation of the content owners' copyright. |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:It is not like he is taking a signal, decoding it, encoding it and then rebroadcasting it. He is simply taking a signal and sending it on down the line.
Completely false. He is in fact recoding the audio/video for streaming to Internet connected devices, and also recording it for later replay. |
|
