wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes ABC vs Aereo Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of OCA/OCP Java SE 7 Programmer I & II Study Guide this week in the OCPJP forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "ABC vs Aereo" Watch "ABC vs Aereo" New topic
Author

ABC vs Aereo

Jeanne Boyarsky
author & internet detective
Marshal

Joined: May 26, 2003
Posts: 30795
    
157

I read today that the US Supreme Court agreed to take the case of ABC vs Aereo.

Background:
A long time ago, television consisted of a handful of stations that broadcasted free content which households received via "bunny ear" antennas. Except for PBS, all these stations supported themselves by running commercials. Since there weren't many stations, they had a lot more viewers than today so this business model worked. (PBS didn't run commercials and instead held fundraising drives on the air every X months.) Then cable came along and the number of stations grew. Cable pays the broadcast networks retransmission fees for the right to include their content in the cable content. Which struck me as a bit odd. At first I thought they were paying for the cost in the broadcaster sharing the signal. But this would make sense as a flat fee and not $1 per subscriber.

Fast forwarding to today. Aereo "took advantage" of the antenna provision and hosts tiny antennas rather than one on your property and streams the content to you. The case is whether this is legal or if it is retransmission. The cable companies are saying they will use the same technology if it is deemed legal. Some of the broadcast networks are threatening to go cable only. Which seems silly because part of the day is local broadcasting. And the fact that their prime time benefits from a vast increase in free PR and accessibility by being an over the air station. There's a new comedy on ABC vs ABC Family. Which gets covered in the newspaper?

I have never used Aereo and have no need for it given I get good reception from where I live. I have cable and a bunny ears antenna as a backup - which I used during CBS' dispute with Time Warner last year. My mother has pure bunny ears. She hardly watches any TV so no use for cable.

I do see both sides of this. I do think Aereo is retransmitting since they are receiving the signal on your behalf and propagating it. At the same time, I see how it could be considered "outsourcing" your antenna.

I wonder whether it is time to end the re-transmission fee scheme completely. I also wonder if two of the broadcast networks would like to give up their slots, whether they could be made available to someone else. I bet some cable stations would like to expand their advertising reach by broadcasting over the air.


[Blog] [JavaRanch FAQ] [How To Ask Questions The Smart Way] [Book Promos]
Blogging on Certs: SCEA Part 1, Part 2 & 3, Core Spring 3, OCAJP, OCPJP beta, TOGAF part 1 and part 2
Paul Clapham
Bartender

Joined: Oct 14, 2005
Posts: 18716
    
    8

Well, I have to say that I read that three times and still didn't understand it. Is this Aereo thing something I could subscribe to and they would run a wire into my house from somewhere?

(People in my area haven't used television antennas for about 30 years now, except for the people who point their antennas at satellites to get more Chinese programming than what's on cable, so perhaps that's why I'm not understanding the issues.)
Jeanne Boyarsky
author & internet detective
Marshal

Joined: May 26, 2003
Posts: 30795
    
157

Paul Clapham wrote:Well, I have to say that I read that three times and still didn't understand it. Is this Aereo thing something I could subscribe to and they would run a wire into my house from somewhere?

No. Here's the official description. They have an antenna somewhere. You get your TV online.
Pat Farrell
Rancher

Joined: Aug 11, 2007
Posts: 4659
    
    5

The key idea is that Aereo has a zillion small antennas to pick up the signal, and then they send the signal out over the Internet. They have one antenna for each customer. This skirts the cable-tv rules on retransmission. Logically, there is one antenna for me, another for Jeanne and still another for Paul. They just use the Internet as a long wire.

This is a critical case for the existing TV network and cable industry. They are hanging on to a very profitable business model that has been technically obsolete for more than a decades. Just like newspapers, the incumbent players have too much money rolling it to enable them to try a new model, yet they have to change.
Bill Clar
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 21, 2006
Posts: 152

I like Aereo's concept as it allows for DVR of broadcast programs. The alternative is a high-def antenna with no dvr options.

I would like this case resolved though. I can't risk buying into their service only to have the Supreme Court shut them down months later.
Bear Bibeault
Author and ninkuma
Marshal

Joined: Jan 10, 2002
Posts: 61457
    
  67

That, and I'd find their service a lot more compelling if the "DVR" automatically included anything shown within the past <some-to-be-determined-time-period>. There's little advantage over a physical DVR in the house if you have remember ahead of time to record The Blacklist and are unable to watch it simply because you forgot to set your "DVR in the cloud" ahead of time.


[Asking smart questions] [Bear's FrontMan] [About Bear] [Books by Bear]
Jeanne Boyarsky
author & internet detective
Marshal

Joined: May 26, 2003
Posts: 30795
    
157

This case goes before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. This article has a nice picture of the tiny Aereo antennas.

And ABC vs Aereo is a vast simplification. Practically every over the air TV station is on board.
Jeanne Boyarsky
author & internet detective
Marshal

Joined: May 26, 2003
Posts: 30795
    
157

Aereo started a website - protectmyantenna.org. It's interesting to see who filed "Friend of the court" briefs for the case. (Scroll down to "Amicus Briefs"). Also interesting is that Aereo didn't lose the appeal in New York. They asked to go to the Supreme Court regardless to put this issue to rest once and for all.

The implications of this case go way beyond antennas. I do have a bunny ear antenna as backup to the cable system. I last used it in August during the Time Warner/CBS blackout. Incidentally wrote this at the time on my blog post about the experience:
An alternative to a physical antenna is Aereo but I’ve heard it isn’t easy to set up while using Time Warner. It’s also $8 month after the trial ends. Which is fine if you are replacing cable but isn’t the best temporary addition. As of April, Aereo was deemed legal. Last month an exec at TIme Warner said “if [Aereo] is found legal, we could conceivably use similar technology. Which means even without another legal challenge, it may become better integrated into cable. Maybe a little antenna in the cable box? [Personally, I've always found it silly that cable companies had to pay for something that is free over the air.]


And this is they key. If Aereo wins, it opens the door to a number of new technologies including cloud TV. If they lose, it makes the network broadcasters retransmission fee demands stronger for future negotiations with the cable company. (You can see where I stand on this issue.)

I still believe that these problems are caused by a bad setup. The contract of free/network tv is broken. I think both Aereo and the networks are exploiting that. And I think they are both wrong. I think Aereo should be allowed to rebroadcast and there should be no retransmission fees for cable. If the network stations don't like that, they are welcome to give up their over the air slot AND channel number. They can become paid tv only. I bet other stations would love to have channel numbers 2, 4, 5, 7 and 11. (The over the air channel numbers where I live.)
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Bartender

Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 11448
    
  16

The SCotUS ruled today. I haven't completely digest this, but Aereo basically lost, 6-3:

opinion analysis


There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
Pat Farrell
Rancher

Joined: Aug 11, 2007
Posts: 4659
    
    5

fred rosenberger wrote:opinion analysis


The meaning will be argued forever until it gets back to the Supremes. For me, the key quote from the above link is:

However, the Court went to some lengths to show that it was issuing only a narrow ruling. It said it was dealing, at this point, only with Aereo’s system so far as it enabled its viewers to view copyrighted TV programs “live,” or after only a brief delay. Justice Breyer stressed that the decision said nothing about downloading a TV program in order to recover it and keep it on hand for somewhat later viewing.
Jeanne Boyarsky
author & internet detective
Marshal

Joined: May 26, 2003
Posts: 30795
    
157

I was going to search for this thread to post in it. Handy it was right on top!

I read the result in the NY TImes article. I had a similar key quote to the one Pat picked:

In oral arguments in the case in April, the justices had expressed concern that a ruling against Aereo would stifle technological innovation. Justice Breyer took pains on Wednesday to say the decision was limited to Aereo’s service. “We believe that resolution of questions about cloud computing, remote storage DVRs and other novel matters not now before us should await a case in which they are clearly presented.”


abd

Justice Antonin Scalia said the service had identified a loophole in the law. “It is not the role of this court to identify and plug loopholes,” he wrote.


Aereo's response is burried in the middle of their home page and is a link to their blog.. if you didn't read carefully, they are selling the same thing for $8/month. It'll be interesting if they go to the broadcasters to negotiate retransmission fees next.
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: ABC vs Aereo