But as someone watches aereo someone else can be watching youtube, another playing a game, etc, etc. You're also assuming all subscribers have internet to begin with.
DISH Reaches Long Term Agreement with DISNEY / ESPN / ABC
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 4K
- Views 669K
But as someone watches aereo someone else can be watching youtube, another playing a game, etc, etc. You're also assuming all subscribers have internet to begin with.
Because the lower courts have. Aereo is just renting an antenna somewhere and then using the internet to stream it to you. You can store items off-site in a cloud type system.
We all know we can all have antennas on our home. We all know we can record (the Betamax court decision in the early 1980s solidified this.) Slingbox is apparently legal presuming all we do is stream programs we recorded. The only thing that is different? I rent an antenna rather than own it. How is this different from renting the home with the antenna versus owning a home with an antenna? There is nothing that Aereo does that is any different. The key is each person has to have an antenna and there are no shared antennas
Right now you can get one stream at a time....but in the future, can we get more? Maybe, maybe not. Plus - can the satellite company simply transmit it to you via satellite airwaves versus using a DSL or Cable line? Or what about wireless internet? That's clearly available.
The sky is the limit - technology changes every day.
Now, knowing that cable/satellite can use Aereo to transmit as an option, this may also pave the way for more reasonable retransmission rates as well.
You are correct technology changes every day. But I don't think they're at the point of transmitting the "aereo type" signal over satellite. They can do internet over satellite, but my understanding right now is it won't support streaming. They can't put the video & audio over sat because that would tie up too much bandwidth to send everyone their own signal. If they send the signal to multiple people, that's retrans.
Can/will these problems be solved? I'm sure. I just don't know how soon.
Don't get me wrong. I think Aereo SHOULD be proven legal. I'm not sure it's ready for nationwide coverage yet however.
Just a quick correction: the lower courts haven't granted injunctive relief against Aereo. That is not the same as a final verdict. In fact, I believe a service similar to Aereo has been ruled against at the injunction level by a different court than the one considering the Aereo case. Preliminary wins are a good sign, but Aereo is a long way away from winning its case, let alone surviving any and all appeals. I should also note, the current round of appeals is limited to pre-trial injunctive relief. No matter what is ruled, there is still a long road ahead in the courts.
As pointed out, Aereo has not been judged legal yet, only that staying in operation until a judgement does not harm the networks. It is a good sign for Aereo but certainly not the same as done deal.
Slingbox does not just allow for recorded material, it provides live programs.
How is it different? If I am a Network I am going to say because the antenna is not at your property, and that the programming is copyrighted only to be distributed by people who pay us. Aereo in affect is distributing our material.
I'm not saying that will or will not win in Court, but there is a difference. Question is, is it enough of a difference to stop Aereo.
Here is an article that explains what the courts are doing in regards to aero future.
http://paidcontent.org/2013/06/02/t...ew-a-wrench-into-aereos-plan-to-take-over-tv/
Last edited:
If the Supreme Court rules it as legal then the networks are up a creek without a paddle. Cable/Satellite/IPTV providers may decide to roll their own solution similar to what Aereo does for their markets and tell the networks to shove their retransmission fees.
Nope, no difference. It's a case of first impression related to novel use of technology to deliver a long standing product and existing law isn't specific enough for a decision without trial and interpretation. So right now it's in limbo, neither clearly legal or clearly illegal. So no big difference (contrary to what you state).
In fact, since Aereo is new it really needs a favorable verdict sooner than the established deep pocket networks need one. I can see the networks drag this on for as long as possible in the hope that the uncertainty will starve the startup of 1) investors in the business and 2) customers willing to adopt a novel and perhaps illegal service. Without enough of either of those Aereo goes under and the networks win by default.
As a bonus to the networks, the longer they can litigate this, the longer they can delay others from adopting this model and cutting off a revenue stream of theirs (much like the direct not implementing their own version of autohop while the current litigation is pending).
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
That's not the question before the court at this point. There hasn't even been a court case yet. These are all just preliminary matters. It'll be years before the merits of the case actually come before the court (if that ever even happens).
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
You missed the most important line in the story:
"It's just a guess"
It would not be a surprise that Disney asks for more $$ due to Autohop, but would Dish really pay to reimburse for *possible* future Autohop use? Doesn't make any sense to me.
