Antennas for all
April 19, 2013 5:40 AM   Subscribe

Aereo is a web service that allows subscribers to watch broadcast TV on their computers or mobile devices. The broadcast networks are furious. Aereo is ready for a PR fight, and is currently winning the legal battle. Variety wonders: Is Aereo Actually a Good Thing? posted by ThePinkSuperhero (41 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite
 
Wasn't there another company in New York that was doing this briefly and got shut down? Or am I just remembering Aereo's initial splash before the litigation jumped off?

Looking at the previously link, I think it was probably Aereo. Good on them for coming out of the fight intact.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:48 AM on April 19, 2013


Note: NYC billing addresses only. I'm sure that's part of their legal strategy. I wonder if there's any hope for a post box (or borrowed address from a family member) and a prepaid card. I wouldn't mind getting the NYC networks again, I enjoyed having that on satellite years ago before D*tv disallowed it.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:53 AM on April 19, 2013


TVCatchup won their similar fight in the UK
posted by fullerine at 5:57 AM on April 19, 2013


“My belief, which is maybe a naive immigrant’s perspective of fairness, is there are lawmakers in this country who are very thoughtful and understand the value of competition, the value of alternatives, and who understand consumer protection,” he said.

This guy is either a mad genius or the greatest satirist of our time.
posted by griphus at 6:03 AM on April 19, 2013 [22 favorites]


Wasn't there another company in New York that was doing this briefly and got shut down? Or am I just remembering Aereo's initial splash before the litigation jumped off?

They announced it about a year ago, and then I heard nothing about it until about three weeks ago. I'm very interested in the service; we have an antenna that we can use inside our window but we don't get all the channels (NBC always, CBS if the window is open, ABC rarely); I'd like to be able to get reliable broadcast television, mainly for special events and sports. I am curious to see if this will shake out to be something the broadcast networks have to be afraid of; part of me agrees with the commenter in the last thread who said, "This is an interesting idea that probably nobody will use."
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:05 AM on April 19, 2013


Don't the cable/satelitte companies do the exact same thing to carry local broadcast networks?
posted by schmod at 6:18 AM on April 19, 2013


My hat is doffed to Aereo for figuring out a way to pull this off. I ended up loosely involved in a project like this in the 90s. But I assumed that while it was just barely technically feasible at the time, hell would freeze over before the rights holders would let it go forward. Finding a hack for that is epic.
posted by wotsac at 6:21 AM on April 19, 2013


Don't the cable/satelitte companies do the exact same thing to carry local broadcast networks?

They do so under contract and pay at least a small premium to the local stations. And while they might pull in the local channels via an antenna, it's not as many antennae as there are D*tv subscribers watching the channel, for instance.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:22 AM on April 19, 2013


I still don't understand what they're mad about. They release the signal free into the air. Whether someone receives it using an antenna, Aereo, or a special gold tooth, isn't that just the same to the networks? New viewers.
posted by the jam at 6:25 AM on April 19, 2013 [9 favorites]


Finding a hack for that is epic.

They found two, but they're not hacks.

rimshot

posted by snuffleupagus at 6:25 AM on April 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


“My belief, which is maybe a naive immigrant’s perspective of fairness, is there are lawmakers in this country who are very thoughtful and understand the value of competition, the value of alternatives, and who understand consumer protection,” he said.

My belief, which is maybe an understanding of the fundamental realities of modern networked computing, is that information that can digitized can be retransmitted an infinite number of times to an infinite number of locations for approximately zero cost whether your business model can handle that or not, and that people who are desperate to fight that fact will buy any lawyers, laws and lawmakers they can to delay the inevitable demise of their business which that fact foretells.
posted by mhoye at 6:28 AM on April 19, 2013 [18 favorites]


"Good" is relative. I can assure you, compared to Comcast, Aereo is a good thing. I don't live anywhere near New York, and just the *knowledge* that this exists somewhere is a good thing.

But then compared to Comcast, Irritable Bowel Syndrome is a good thing.
posted by Naberius at 6:31 AM on April 19, 2013 [3 favorites]


Living in the middle of the mountains it'd be nice if I could do something like this. But even if this were rolled out all over I would not be able to use it. The absolute only way for me to catch any television is through cable or satellite.
posted by Phantomx at 6:47 AM on April 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


Maybe instead of a lawsuit, the broadcasters should send Aereo a thank-you card.

That was my first thought. The problem broadcasters have is the distribution network. Right now, they broadcast their signals and fund themselves off advertising, product placement, and commercials. Distribution costs over that medium are (probably) the least of their concerns.

Right now, advertisers pay broadcasters for airtime. Broadcasters show commercials to consumers. Consumers buy soap. Advertisers pay broadcasters for airtime... etc.

The moment they go to cable or Internet-based distribution, there is an intermediary sitting between them and the consumer.

The consumer pays the cable network, and the cable network sets the channel availability. That is driven by consumer demand – many consumers will not pay for cable networks without the major broadcasters – but cable networks end up being like large healthcare insurers, and can solicit a variety of things from broadcasters, due to their volume purchasing.

Same thing with the Internet.

In essence, this seems to be about broadcasters losing control of distribution, which is a very dangerous thing in any industry – just ask the carcass that is the music industry.

The fact that Aereo is rebroadcasting signals – with commercials intact – gives the broadcasters a whole new channel to market without changing any of their existing processes or revenue structures. One could even imagine – at an extreme – Aereo could help the broadcasters beat the cable networks. If one could get (for example) broadcast TV via the Aereo app, HBO via the HBO app, and ESPN via the ESPN app, and that constitutes 95% of what one watches, that would probably be an infinitely better solution for most consumers, than having a wire which comes into their home, carrying a heap of content, 95% which is irrelevant.

Not only a thank you card. A BIG thank you card.
posted by nickrussell at 6:51 AM on April 19, 2013 [5 favorites]


I'm confused. I recently purchased a Happauge USB thingie so that I can watch and record broadcast TV on my computer. It even came with a cute little antenna, too. Works great. How is the Aereo any different than that?
posted by davidmsc at 7:04 AM on April 19, 2013 [2 favorites]


...just ask the carcass that is the music industry.

Last I checked this was doing just fine. CD sales are gone, but people are still buying shitloads of music.

If one could get (for example) broadcast TV via the Aereo app, HBO via the HBO app, and ESPN via the ESPN app, and that constitutes 95% of what one watches, that would probably be an infinitely better solution for most consumers, than having a wire which comes into their home, carrying a heap of content, 95% which is irrelevant.

In my mind this is even thinking too small. I don't care are 95% of the stuff on the channels I do watch. Give me Justified and Sons of Anarchy and I have no need of anything else on that channel. Let me pay by the show.

I try to do everything legally, but I also hate waiting. It you have a product to sell and you refuse to allow me to be your customer...eh, I'll find solutions. Sometimes I use VPN, sometimes other means. We pay for the hockey package and yet sometimes they black out games just to piss me off. These are games that there's no other way to get than to have both a cable subscription and a premium package. Eff you. I can go to a sports bar or I can fire up some website in Uzbekistan or you can add it to the package and distribution system I already pay for.

As far as the BBC is concerned I live in the UK when it comes time to watch Sherlock or Downton.

I'd happily pay, and do, if it means I can avoid commercials and I can get it in a timely manner.

I'm confused. I recently purchased a Happauge USB thingie so that I can watch and record broadcast TV on my computer. It even came with a cute little antenna, too. Works great. How is the Aereo any different than that?

Take that and stream it across the internet, now charge people money. That's it.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:10 AM on April 19, 2013


Take that and stream it across the internet, now charge people money. That's it.

I don't think they'd even really care about this except that Aereo probably doesn't force their subscribers to watch the commercials. Looking at their website, it looks like they have some DVR features built in. But, unlike Tivo and all the other DVRs, the networks think they can do something about it.

If Aereo didn't have DVR and didn't allow it's customers to skip commercials, I doubt they'd have a problem with it.

On the other hand, it seems like content distributors tend to act irrationally when it comes to changes in their business model.
posted by VTX at 7:18 AM on April 19, 2013


Let me pay by the show.

Full agreement there. That would be truly disruptive and really interesting.
posted by nickrussell at 7:26 AM on April 19, 2013


Wake me up when all television is streaming on my computer. It'll be right after the last CEO to have lived through World War II dies off.
posted by Mooseli at 7:27 AM on April 19, 2013 [5 favorites]


Because of the way the pricing structure works, paying by the show would mean either really, really expensive television shows for consumers, or the death of premium-channel shows like Game of Thrones and possibly even basic cable stuff like Mad Men. Even Netflix makes you pay for Netflix.
posted by griphus at 7:29 AM on April 19, 2013


Aerokiller, a west-cost imitator of Aereo, hasn't been as succesful in the lower courts and is on its way to the Ninth Circuit. EFF's amicus brief.

Here's a blog post about the divergence.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:47 AM on April 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


I wonder if relying on Cablevision prevents them from being able to use deduplication on their DVR datastore.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:50 AM on April 19, 2013


The legal fight is really about retransmission fees. The relevant legal framework is copyright law. Broadcasters broadcast over the air to anyone who has an antenna, or they allow cable and satellite companies to retransmit those signals to their subscribers for a per-subscriber fee. Cable and satellite operators are permitted to retransmit those copyrighted signals under a relatively complex statutory and contractual framework.

The broadcasters are claiming that what Aereo is doing is identical to retransmission and thus is a violation of their copyright protections. Aereo says that they are not retransmitting because each subscriber has their own, individual antenna feed.

Broadcasters are fighting hard here because retransmission fees are a huge part of their revenue stream. Used to be they got most of their revenue from advertisers; even a decade ago, retransmission fees were not all that big a slice. But in the last several years, most broadcasters changed from demanding cable companies carry them (called "must carry") to demanding cable companies pay them to be allowed to carry those channels (called "retransmission consent"). This change correlates with the rise in cable/satellite penetration and the decline in over-the-air viewership. Cable and satellite companies pay those fees because their subscribers demand broadcast TV (at least, for the Big 4 networks), and broadcasters use that to leverage their increasing retransmission fees. As a result, broadcasters now get most of their revenue from retransmission fees, and that revenue is growing.

I think the broadcasters' fear is that, if Aereo wins, a lot more people could cancel cable, thus depriving the broadcasters of the retransmission fees for those subscribers. Or, worse, cable and satellite companies could drop the networks from their lineup and partner with Aereo for carriage of those channels, thus depriving broadcasters of retransmission fees -- and freeing them from paying those fees. Under either hypothetical, the broadcasters would have no mechanism for seeking retransmission fees for the Aereo subscribers because, as Aereo argues, under the copyright framework here, they are not retransmitting anything -- they are simply passing an individual's personal antenna feed along to that individual's television, via the internet. The broadcasters need to win, or they lose a big chunk of revenue. And the way they win is by getting a court to find that Aereo is violating the copyright restrictions on retransmission of content without consent.

This is a really interesting case, but make no mistake -- this is not about distribution. It is about money.
posted by devinemissk at 8:30 AM on April 19, 2013 [9 favorites]


They also provide DVR services, storing each customers recordings privately, and at least under Cablevision, I would think redundantly. Here's an Ars article about that decision from when it came out.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:41 AM on April 19, 2013


Local broadcasters make a lot of their money from local advertising. If you live in LA and receive NY's NBC, the local LA NBC broadcaster won't make any money. That's why they have the NYC address requirement. You could argue that by getting it over the air they are getting a bigger audience, but which one will people watch? In theory you could have one NBC super-station that everyone watches, and all the other thousands of local NBC broadcasters would go out of business.

What's interesting: the way cable television first started was companies receiving television with antennas, then sending it through a cable to areas that, for some reason or another, were blocked off from the signal. That was cable television. The broadcasters fought that one and lost. Later there were court battles that resulted in must-carry rules and getting fees for that carrying of local stations.

The internet, as always, changes everything and all the old battles need to be fought all over again.
posted by eye of newt at 8:51 AM on April 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


The broadcasters need to win, or they lose a big chunk of revenue.

So, basically, they don't like the old deal anymore, where they transmit stuff over the air for free. Aereo really is renting antennas, and this case is the broadcasters saying that they don't want broadcast customers anymore.

If they want to shut down Aereo, they can do that instantly, just by ceasing to broadcast. They clearly should do this, as broadcasting must be terrible for them, since they're fighting Aero so hard. That, in turn, would free up their spectrum for other, much more interesting uses.

So get with it, broadcasters. Stop giving away your precious content for free. All Aereo is doing is making sure that more people in your transmission area can receive your signal. If you don't like that, then stop broadcasting, and Aereo is gone.
posted by Malor at 9:17 AM on April 19, 2013 [3 favorites]


Last I checked this was doing just fine. CD sales are gone, but people are still buying shitloads of music.

Not really. I mean, my son found the idea of getting an iTunes gift card to be fucking hilarious, but thought the idea of paying for music on iTunes or any other service was a legacy product for old people -- younger than the old people who read newspapers on paper, but still old.
posted by mobunited at 9:49 AM on April 19, 2013


1.
We made the TV antenna unbelievably small

So small it fits on the tip of your finger. But it still gets awesome HD reception.

2.
We connected these antennas to the Internet

We engineered a way to put tons of these antennas in data centers, along with massive amounts of storage and super-fast Internet connections.


3.
We give you control

We built a simple, elegant interface to let you control your antenna. Through the Internet. With any device you want. All without cords, cables, or boxes.


Wut.

Why do I need to control my own personal antenna that exists physically in your data center? Why don't you just have 1 large antenna and then stream all the feeds to us and we can just choose which one to watch?

We made the TV antenna unbelievably small

What is this, an antenna for ants?
posted by Iknowno_one at 9:59 AM on April 19, 2013


Why do I need to control my own personal antenna that exists physically in your data center? Why don't you just have 1 large antenna and then stream all the feeds to us and we can just choose which one to watch?

Because that would be "retransmission" and would be a violation of copyright. The broadcasters have the copyright (or at least a copyright license) to all that content, and are the only ones who can transmit it from a single stream to many individuals. Cable and satellite have to enter into a contract with the broadcasters to do the same thing -- and, in most cases, pay them money for that privilege. But if it's YOUR antenna and only YOU have control over it, it is not "retransmission" and thus does not violate the broadcasters' copyright.

I.e., Aereo has this somewhat complicated setup because it is trying to get around copyright law. Copyright law is confusing and complicated, and especially so in the broadcast/rebroadcast/retransmission world. Because of the way the courts have interpreted the relevant copyright law (notably in Cablevision), Aereo cannot have a single antenna serving many customers. Each customer must have his or her own antenna, that he or she has control over.
posted by devinemissk at 10:18 AM on April 19, 2013 [7 favorites]


I still don't understand what they're mad about. They release the signal free into the air. Whether someone receives it using an antenna, Aereo, or a special gold tooth, isn't that just the same to the networks? New viewers.

Two things: It would gut small market broadcasters and it would allow people to work around blackouts. And I doubt in aggregate they seem many more viewers. Sure some NY super station will get a lot more viewrs but those veiwers will be directly cannabilized from other markets.
posted by Mitheral at 10:43 AM on April 19, 2013


You gotta love industries who refuse to adapt to change. You would think Napster would have taught them something.
posted by prepmonkey at 11:02 AM on April 19, 2013


So get with it, broadcasters. Stop giving away your precious content for free.

They're way ahead of you.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:13 AM on April 19, 2013 [3 favorites]


Doesn't Slingbox already accomplish the same task as Aereo without the monthly subscription fee or am I missing something?
posted by alamedarchy at 12:13 PM on April 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


So, basically, they don't like the old deal anymore, where they transmit stuff over the air for free.

Not really all that new for them. They couldn't wait to stop broadcasting SD signals. A decent portion of the things over-the-air stations do they do not because they want to but because the FCC requires it of them by virtue of their licenses. If they could broadcast encrypted signal which they could charge you to decode you can be sure they would.

Stuff like this makes for an interesting avenue for change in the cable arena. At the moment you can be sure that the local channels that represent the Big Four in your are are getting compensated for their place on the cable channels. But if they opted to not pay to transmit them then the broadcaster could assert that they MUST transmit them, albiet for free.

Imagine the upshot if your local cable company could bargain with companies like Aereo for an alternative source for your NBC feed. Would the FCC change the rules about set-asides and must-carries? Interesting stuff. And people who make money on commodities don't much like interesting.
posted by phearlez at 12:42 PM on April 19, 2013


Why would I want to pay anyone when my rooftop antenna works just fine with no monthly bill? Then again, I don't need or desire to watch TV on any "devices" other than this thing I have called a "television."

If Aereo does cause over the air broadcasts to end, I will despise them eternally. And I will never pay anyone for TV with commercials.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 8:01 PM on April 19, 2013


You'd want to pay if you couldn't get an antenna to work.
posted by Mitheral at 9:10 PM on April 19, 2013 [1 favorite]


Mitheral: "You'd want to pay if you couldn't get an antenna to work."

What part of, and I quote my original post, "And I will never pay anyone for TV with commercials." don't you understand? Does that make more sense to you now? Probably not, but that's as much as I'm willing to help you understand simple concepts.

A bonus point for you: They have TV shows on the internet that anyone can watch for free. Probably still puzzling for you, though.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 9:44 PM on April 19, 2013


Not really, most people don't get an internet connection for free.
posted by Mitheral at 10:28 PM on April 19, 2013 [3 favorites]


A couple of things I know from friends in a unique position in local broadcast TV in regards to Aereo: 1) it's super weird working at a CBS/FOX duopoly and hearing the corporate network guys from BOTH NETWORKS threaten to pull the plug over losing a lawsuit, but 2) nobody's really worried about their jobs because it seems the emptiest of empty threats.

Also, a lot of local affiliates are really, really wanting to get on board the IPTV train before it barrels over them, but they're shackled by the parent networks who just vaguely gesture towards Hulu and call it good. The rights issues can barely get sorted out on a national level, local isn't even on their radar and you can't do it with the networks' blessings without expensive and crappy platforms they've vetted that lock IPTV viewing into the local viewing area. Local news is about the only thing most local stations can offer online of their own accord (it's typically the only in-house production budgeted, if you're even lucky enough to be able to produce your own news), and even then almost nobody watches local news video online because they can read the text story attached to it faster without preroll ads. And it's a newsroom culture shock to have to say "Yes, TV news is your job, but you need to write for the web first and do it enthusiastically if you want to be relevant at all in the next few years". Getting local news on set-top boxes like Roku is also a no-brainer, but the work involved is a time and money investment station groups don't want to get behind for their affiliates, because news production budgets get used up so. damn. fast with professional equipment and software and the staffs are stretched super thin. And, honestly, because too many of the decision makers are busy reenacting the behavior of newspaper execs circa the late 90s. It's a fad! Who wants to watch TV on their phone!

...yeah. Also, you want to see a good double-take, tell your local station GM you're a cordcutter.

It's an interesting set of problems, and a really interesting time to work on the web side of local news, especially in small- to mid-size markets that don't have the money that goes to the flagship stations in their station group. Station webmasters all over the country are getting all Sisyphean trying to sort this thing out. I try to advocate for open source solutions like Newscoop* and becoming leaner and smarter on the web instead of using clunky top-down parent-company-mandated CMSes and the same old "clip + barely expanded text story" that plagues local news sites, but it's an uphill battle.

Anyways, yeah. Local broadcast news. It's a pretty awesome and necessary thing, way more independent from the networks in important ways than you'd think (your FOX affiliate's local news, if it tends a bit FOX News Channel-ish, is doing that by choice and not mandate from FOX national), but it's chained to big slow dinosaurs.

*Sourcefabric is doing seriously amazing work, same with CasparCG and the Open Broadcast Encoder project but almost nobody is taking a chance on them at local stations in the US because it's scary to the decision makers to not get nicely prepackaged (and insanely expensive) solutions.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:56 AM on April 20, 2013 [5 favorites]


devinemissk is exactly right: this is all about the broadcasters needing the second revenue stream from retransmission fees to supplement their advertising revenue. Aereo threatens that and therefore has them freaking out.

But here's a radical notion: do we even need terrestrial TV broadcasting anymore? Consider: there are 1,774 full power TV stations in the US right now. If we use an average power draw of 800 KWatts per hour for each transmitter then we're using around 1,419 Mega Watts for each hour all of those stations are transmitting. Yet only 10% of all US homes actually watch terrestrial TV broadcasts -- everyone else already watches via cable or satellite retransmission, and as per the article, they tend to be in the lowest income bracket.

So why not just say fuck it, and stop transmitting all together? Between the money saved by not operating and maintaining high power transmitters, towers and support equipment as well as the billions of dollars generated by selling the spectrum space we could give the 10% of homes that rely on over-the-air broadcast signals a free cable or satellite box with free monthly service. We'd also save a shitload of energy. Of course, the obvious downside is that there would be far fewer antennas for all the B.A.S.E. jumpers out there.
posted by Dean358 at 1:20 PM on April 20, 2013


I finally had an excuse to try it out- sick day! And it's not a sick day if you don't watch "The Price is Right". I paid my dollar for a day pass, and was pleased overall- the streams are very clear and mostly steady. Twice I was watching and the sound cut out for unknown reasons, but a stop and start again fixed that. I also recorded a program to watch later, which went just as well as watching live (a little slower, but that could've been because I keep about a dozen tabs open while I'm browsing around). I'm hoping I'll get a coupon to renew at a discounted rate after the daily pass runs out, because I think this would be very helpful, particularly come football season.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:45 PM on April 26, 2013


« Older Batman v0.1 was a Belgian shoemaker   |   "I started to worry you'd never come." Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments