Supreme Court to hear arguments on Aereo this week
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
One question I've never seen fully addressed about the technology: are they literally claiming to capture a signal directly from the tiny antenna and encode/route that specific signal to a specific user with no other filtering/enhancement/etc. in between? Knowing how hard it is to get a good DTV signal, it seems unlikely that a bunch of tiny antennas buried in a data center are going to get reliably good signals. It would seem like what they are doing is capturing the signal from a better source, and then maintaining a batch of crappy antennas just to claim a 1:1 ratio of antennas to customers.
Does anyone know with reliable data how the technology really works?
Full disclosure: I work there.
So then you're saying that two customers using Aereo watching the same broadcast channel are getting uniquely encoded signals, and one could theoretically be connected to an antenna that had poor reception/signal (for whatever reason) and the other could be connected to an antenna with a better signal, and they'd see visibly different image streams?
"If one individual consumer's antenna — let's say a mosquito sits on it or it fails because the associated electronics failed — your screen goes dark and your neighbor is fine".
"Neighbor" here meaning "the person using the antenna next to yours".
http://www.c-span.org/video/?318908-1/communicators-chet-kan...
Side note: As a front-end engineer, I can tell you it's pretty cool to know that on the other end of your app there's an individual piece of tangible equipment interacting with the physical world. That's pretty unique.
And if the box has 160 or so units per board, is all the 8VSB RF decode in there as well? The tour seems to imply that.
160 units capturing 18 mbit/sec (max) per 8VSB would be 2.88 gbit/sec going off to transcoding. But the module is using a 1 gigabit pipe? Or are all three ethernet cables attached to that module sending video?
[1]http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/16/aereo-shows-off-their-rooft...
Yes, they claim to have a dedicated antenna for every user, a dedicated transcoder for every user, and a dedicated dvr box for every user.
I don't know if the courts are having external experts come in to audit their technology, but it seems like its safer for them to simply make it work the way they claim than to have gone through so much trouble to fake it.
Disclaimer: My parent company throws its signal via microwave off the antenna on that building.
If they have changed since then it would be interesting to here about the decision process that lead to the change.
I'm not an expert, but to some extent, isn't that the same thing? Because of the way radio transmission works, any receiver is also a (re-)transmitter.
It might be that maintaining several small antennae actually improves the signal.
From the Zediva case: "The courts ruled that it was irrelevant that the videos were streamed to one customer at a time in his private hotel room; the service still transmitted videos 'to the public,'"
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/08/judge-orders-shut...
A huge difference between Zediva and Aereo is that Aereo only rebroadcasts network television. All the content that Aereo rebroadcasts is already required by law to be publicly accessible and unencrypted(!)[0]. This is why they only serve over-the-air content - the same law does not apply to DVDs rented, or even to cable television.
Also, to my knowledge, Aereo does not deduplicate content stored, whereas Zediva essentially does. You and I know that there's no difference between "my" digital copy and "your" digital copy, but Aereo does store a separate copy per-user and only distributes each copy to the correct user.
The reason that Aereo separates those copies is because we already have case law that establishes my right to record an over-the-air broadcast and replay it for myself[1]. Aereo maintains that it is acting on behalf of the customers to exercise the customers' right to create personal recordings. If they de-duplicated the data (as Zediva did), they'd certainly save a lot on storage and hardware costs, but they'd no longer be protected by this legal precedent.
Aereo has a very well-funded legal team that is certainly aware of Zediva and other landmark legal precedents[2] - they specifically crafted their entire business around the Cablevision ruling and other case law.
[0] In 2012, the FCC decided to allow cable operators to encrypt these signals, but even this only applies to the retransmission: "The FCC wants to ensure that consumers can still access basic cable services without specifically renting a box from the cable companies. And so the FCC is requiring that the cable operators make the unencrypted TV signals available to third-party device makers and Internet TV service providers." (http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-allows-cable-operators-to-encry...)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....
[2] Aereo's raised $100MM in 4 rounds. Three of those rounds included IAC, which is run by Barry Diller, who has plenty of relevant industry experience, to say the least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Diller
This should be a clue to the supremes that this is bad law.
If they use a filesystem where blocks are content addressable, but files referring to those blocks are unique, is that illegal?
This, incidentally, is why you lose a quarter point on the SAT when you get the answer wrong.
I think there are distinctions with the Aereo case, though. I could see Aereo winning despite the remote-watching-DVD case, and I was very confident in correctly predicting how the DVD case would turn out.
Because the company is doing the performance to the public
Teleprompter Corp. v. CBS, 415 U.S. 394 (1974) [1]
Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc. - 392 U.S. 390 (1968) [2]
Unlike the Zediva case, these were actually heard at the Supreme Court (but they are also old, decided before some important cable bills and copyright act modifications).
Eh, seemingly conflicting precedents are, of course, why we are at this stage.
[1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&...
[2] http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/390/
EDIT: links.
17 USC 111 says cable companies can retransmit, but only for a fee.
I see three reasonable interpretations of this result:
1. Aereo can retransmit, just has to pay licensing fees. 2. 17 USC 111 does not apply at all to Aereo, because Aereo is not a cable company, therefore the old precedents stand, and Aereo can retransmit without any fees. 3. Congressional action set the precise requirements for anyone to retransmit (ie, you must be a cable operator), and thus Aereo is flat out prohibited from rebroadcasting at all.
All of these seem prima facie reasonable, there's lots of room for judicial interpretation. I think there's a strong case to be made for 2, since Congress only took two years to respond to rulings before. Congress has demonstrated competence here, it can patch its out of date laws without requiring the Supreme Court to start radically reinterpreting "cable operator" to mean "any internet company." The Supreme Court therefore should just interpret as strictly as possible, doing as little work for policymakers as necessary. That means 17 USC 111 doesn't apply to Aereo at all, and we're left with valid Supreme Court precedents to control the case. If Congress doesn't like it, they can explicitly clarify 17 USC 111 at any time.
[1] http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supr...
Aereo has absolutely no right to distribute OTA broadcast signals.
The court can say that time-shifting content you are licensed to broadcast is allowed but time/place shifting unlicensed content is not.
I think the whole issue is sort of crazy. Aereo could probably license the content and distribute it cheaper without having to mess around with thousands and thousands of antennas.
At best you could make the argument that Aereo is acting in the capacity of a radio translator station, but it clearly doesn't fall under the same (FCC) rules since no radio rebroadcast is performed. The fact that it happens over the Internet is a mere implementation detail, one that is supported by the Cablevision case.
I was in the Aereo beta in Houston (I didn't keep it, found it kind of boring, fuzzy and laggy, and not matching how I watch OTA on multiple TVs at once). When I tried to watch a Houston OTA stream in San Antonio, I was politely told that that was not allowed. There is no technical reason this is not allowed, but I'd guess Aereo blocks this for now to keep the legal issues bounded.
In the US, ones does not need an explicit "right" to do something that is legal. I don't even understand that way of thinking. We delegate powers to the government, we retain all rights to ourselves.
http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/index.php/finland/finland-news/d...
They should stop offering the streaming service, and start selling this thing (either recreate a similar competing device, or simply become a reseller!): http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_broadway.html - a TV-signal-receiver/streamer-in-one device -- which can stream either over your local Wi-fi, or across the interwebs so you can watch remotely when you're out of the house.
And then people can use this thing for themselves and their friends and families... at no cost! Aereo should ship the thing to all current consumers immediately after losing, and lock everyone into a contract of 8$/month payments for however long it takes to recoup the full $150 cost of the device.
I'll be happy if people get this device over a service because it goes a nice distance to finally putting the power of cloud in the consumer's hand.
Sure it's five minutes of hassle setting the thing up, but once it's setup it's all free.
This might work for lucky fiber-to-home subscribers but every time I've tried on Comcast, a giant buffer (10 seconds or more) is required to hide the jitter, and sometimes the neighbors start seeding something on BitTorrent and the stream will still cut out.
Plus there are a lot of contingencies that require an increasingly complex technical solution. First you have to deal with whatever router configuration / NAT is present. And sometimes your friend's IP changes, and you're stuck setting up dynamic DNS or a reverse proxy.
The Broadway box was generally panned in reviews for not including a workaround for these networking issues, and I suspect the technical complexity of friend-to-friend streaming is why TV broadcasters have never been worried about it in the past. IPv6 will hopefully help solve the addressing and NAT issues, but the generally awful quality of US home connections remains a big problem.
From that standpoint of broadcast being so highly regulated because the airwaves are public property do the stations who use that medium retain any rights to what they broadcast? If the FCC can claim jurisdiction and tell you what you cannot broadcast over "public airwaves" because is public property does the act of freely putting your shows on it mean you give up the right to control unaltered reuse or differing uses?
No, by law it does not. The copyright remains in effect. As discussed in the article, broadcasting grants certain rights to end users, but it certainly doesn't wipe out all the copyright holder's rights.
It is perfectly legal for an end user in this case to make a video recording and watch it later for personal use. Or even digitize it and watch it on their computer. In Aereo case that digital copy is also sent over the internet to another computer for personal viewing.
In this case no copyrights seem to be broken.
Instead they still to this day create a false demand by holding back American innovation, that only works if their aren't other alternatives.
If broadcast/cable want to live on they need to get to innovating and improving service, not fighting everything that challenges their kingdom.
I hope Aereo once again opens up competition on overpriced and monopolistic practices. Cable and broadcast had an immense lead when broadband internet innovated (with the help of taxpayer money and rights to provide the service they agreed to), then they stopped, got fat and turned to hogs.
Monopolies can sometimes move everyone forward for a time (At&T/telcos leading to software/C/C++, Microsoft spreading computing and internet, possibly Apple and the smart phone initially) but eventually, if the leaders aren't innovating and get too comfortable, they need to be jolted awake as they are no longer the leading innovators nor the future.
The networks continue to matter because they offer products that people want to buy (movies and TV shows). These products are so compelling, that very few people have managed to offer compelling alternatives. E.g. people don't just want a doctor show, they want "House." They don't just want a sitcom, they want "How I Met Your Mother." It's not "innovation" to simply figure out new ways to take popular products and distribute them to consumers without paying the creators.
I applaud Netflix and Amazon for going down the path of real competition. Shows like "House of Cards" and "Alpha House" are rare alternatives to the media offered by established companies that actually receive good critical and audience reception.
Before cable, Fox was successful in being the 4th big broadcast network but it was a huge battle (although it did shake things up when successful shows like the Simpsons were on).
Thankfully shortly after, we have cable and internet now, both further steps in limiting top down broadcast control. But with the support of tax money, broadcast space and lots of money the old broadcast stations were a combined monopoly on the airwaves.
You could argue the network stations have had to innovate a bit with cable and internet taking over and so they do have content that people love. The desire to use the public airwaves has been impossible for so long nobody really wants to take over the public airwaves much anymore so it is silly to fight against Aereo.
Today, I don't think the arrangement makes sense for anyone. Broadcast TV isn't the best use of all that spectrum, and the vast majority of people get their television content through cable or the internet. The bulk of the value of the networks today is in their content. They've always had the content people love, because they do a really good job making such content. They have expertise. It's very difficult to create content people want to watch, because most people will quickly dismiss shows and movies that don't have high production values. That's where the value of these companies lies in the modern era. And going forward, they'll have to double-down on this core function.
But Aereo isn't moving "innovation" forward in any way. They're just trying to make a quick buck using other peoples' content. In contrast, Amazon and Netflix (as well as HBO and some other companies) are moving the whole situation forward by trying to compete with the networks in the area of content production.
Why innovate when you can legislate?
In it, the Aereo CEO admits to being "anxious" because the $100 million on the company is essentially down the drain depending on what the Supreme Court decides. He says, this is mainly due to the 110-odd people who work at the firm. Fair-nuff -- seems like a reasonable sort-a guy.
Nope, if the Nationals aren't over the air in DC (likely not most of the time), and you live in DC, it will be blacked out. Aereo does not affect this in any way.
//just to show how absurd the situation with computer crime right now is.
I've been following and covering Aereo since its NYC launch in Feb 2012 and regardless of who wins, the implications for the future of broadcast are huge.
Why would we expect any better here?
Are they talking about the data being broadcasted in public spectrum? Or that the wave travel through public air and atmosphere?
If it is the latter and that argument can be used, then would it be legal to capture cellphone communication and any wireless data?
I just don't think one should blindly accept unsound argument even if it would result in the change one wants.
In other words, it's okay not just because the data is on the public airwaves, but because the data is on the public airwaves AND broadcasters have agreed to let the public use that data under certain conditions. This isn't quite the legal posture of the dispute, but it's the public policy essence of it.
You know, what your TV tunes in to if you just have an antenna.
Aereo sells a service where they operate an antenna on your behalf, and essentially run a long cable to your house from one of their locations, where the antenna is located.
Your comment shows that you didn't really look in to the argument being presented before commenting - because it instantly latches on to an untrue hypothetical as to why you shouldn't agree.
Actually, yes. Except that Congress has specifically made that action illegal if not done under a specific list of exceptions (e.g. law enforcement with a warrant, intelligence agencies collecting foreign intelligence under an authorization from someone at their agency with that authority, etc.)
Cellphone and wireless are point to point communications.
The argument isn't unsound, just unclearly stated.