Aereo TV is Legal according to new court decision

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#2
I still don't understand how the tiny antennas can receive signals in an electrically noisy datacenter... but if it works, it works I guess.
 

Thomas G

Contributor
#3
I still don't understand how the tiny antennas can receive signals in an electrically noisy datacenter... but if it works, it works I guess.
Makes one wonder, perhaps if they're actually using the antennas as a decoy/prop. Wonder how difficult it would be for them to hide that they're getting stations through one single antenna or a direct feed from a secondary service with good quality.
 

CptlA

DTVUSA Member
#4
lol, tons of bitter comments on that cnet article:

Screw you CBS and you other network dopes. It's long been legal to use equipment to record TV.
screw you, CBS
LOL! Take that losers stuck in the past trying to monetize an ancient business model rather than actually keeping up with current technology because you are too cheap to spend the money on enhancing your infrastructure! **GASP!!**.
The networks could put Aereo out of business by simply doing it themselves. But they are stuck in the past and will not innovate no matter how hard they are pushed. That's what happens when a company is run by lawyers instead of innovators.
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#6
Of course this is still just a ruling on the initial injunction and not on the actual suit. I'm looking for the final ruling. If Aereo wins expect all the pay-TV providers to run for the retrans doors. Tiny antennas everywhere! Then we will see how the networks react. Will they actually start to promote their OTA signals, do their own internet distribution, or will they try to take their signals off the air? Time will tell.
 
#8
I still don't understand how the tiny antennas can receive signals in an electrically noisy datacenter... but if it works, it works I guess.
Well, if the tiny antennas are touching, it becomes one big antenna, right? I don't know of any legal principle that prevents one antenna from touching another.

Antenna theory might not treat it as a small antenna, but antenna theory isn't subsumed into law. You are renting an antenna that's just a tiny piece of a much bigger antenna. So what? :becky:

Rick
 

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#9
Of course this is still just a ruling on the initial injunction and not on the actual suit. I'm looking for the final ruling. If Aereo wins expect all the pay-TV providers to run for the retrans doors. Tiny antennas everywhere! Then we will see how the networks react. Will they actually start to promote their OTA signals, do their own internet distribution, or will they try to take their signals off the air? Time will tell.
I don't know but it seems troubling for the industry. TV is a very expensive business and those retrans fees are a major revenue source. If it dries up, expect it to get ugly.
 

n2rj

Moderator
Staff member
#10
Well, if the tiny antennas are touching, it becomes one big antenna, right? I don't know of any legal principle that prevents one antenna from touching another.

Antenna theory might not treat it as a small antenna, but antenna theory isn't subsumed into law. You are renting an antenna that's just a tiny piece of a much bigger antenna. So what? :becky:

Rick
It's not really that simple.

From the pictures they don't appear to be touching.

Bigger is not always better.

And there's still the electrically noisy datacenter to deal with. Every one I've been in was hostile to anything RF.

My gut feeling is that they have a master antenna on the roof and are capacitively coupling the "dime sized antennas" to that master antenna. That way they get a quality signal but they have somewhat of a legal leg to stand on.
 
#12
From the pictures they don't appear to be touching.
From a current patent (US 20120297423 A1) held by Aereo:

"The content transmission data from the ATSC decoders 106-1 to 106-n is sent to a multiplexer 108. The content transmissions are then transmitted across an antenna transport interconnect to a demultiplexer switch 110. In a preferred embodiment, the antenna transport interconnect is an nx10GbE optical data transport layer."

So apparantly they are electrically interconnected, if not literally touching.

And there's still the electrically noisy datacenter to deal with. Every one I've been in was hostile to anything RF.
From the same patent:

"In the current implementation, the antenna array 102, tuners 104-1 to 104-n, demodulators 106-1 to 106-n, and multiplexer 108 are located outside in an enclosure such as on the roof of a building or on an antenna tower."

My gut feeling is that they have a master antenna on the roof and are capacitively coupling the "dime sized antennas" to that master antenna. That way they get a quality signal but they have somewhat of a legal leg to stand on.
Your gut feeling, then, is these people have only done half their homework, and the idea will fail for that reason? You really seem to be straining to find some loophole for the TV stations. I think it may fail, but if it does, case law precedent will have to be overturned, and that takes years and tons of money.

Rick
 

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#13
I am sure they position the antennas close to the transmitters to enable those itty bitty antennas to work reliably. I know that many people close enough to transmitters can get reception by sticking a paperclip in the coax connector.

Yea, the content providers are going to cry about getting retrans fees from these sort of companies, and the pay TV providers will use this as a weapon to get better deals on their retrans fees.

Funny thing, the FCC is taking spectrum from (free) TV so that people can stream it (for a price) online. OTOH, there are some people who can't get free OTA TV for a number of reasons. This at least gives them a chance to get their local channels at a reasonable price.
 
Top