Aereo

[FiveWide]

Has anyone tried this service? If so what do you think. I'm considering and dropping cable. I'm pretty far away from the broadcast towers and I don't want a humongous antenna. This might be an alternative for me. A co-worker has it and seems to like it.

https://aereo.com/about


thanks in advance,
-Five

[reckless]

I'd wait until the US Supreme Court makes a ruling, scheduled this summer.

Aereo, which won most of the lower court rulings to date, surprisingly sought a Court ruling along with the consortium of cable companies, TV outlets and content providers.

The content providers have threatened to block their signal if Aereo wins in the US Supreme Court.

Another option for you is to purchase a Roku or similar streaming device. There are 100s of channels available, many 'free'. Subscriptions to providers like Hulu, Netflix, many ESPN channels, are available for about $8-10 per month each. You'll need high-speed internet access so if your goal is cutting the cord, it might not be as cheap on the bottom line as many think.

[JustRalph]

Just cut my cable. Have Roku-Apple TV etc.

It's an adjustment.

I'm thinking it's 9/5 that Aereo is out of business after the Supremes get done with them.

But, should they survive it will be a watershed moment in cable

[redshift1]

Has anyone tried this service? If so what do you think. I'm considering and dropping cable. I'm pretty far away from the broadcast towers and I don't want a humongous antenna. This might be an alternative for me. A co-worker has it and seems to like it.

https://aereo.com/about

thanks in advance,
-Five

For all that's Aereo start with the Official AEREO discussion Thread.

Go here:

http://www.avsforum.com/newsearch?search=aereo

.

[reckless]

I think Aereo is toast myself, Ralph, and I don't have a dog in the fight.

It is very interesting times, for sure.

Not sure yet if I am ready, willing and able to watch my horseraces on a cell phone, my movies via Netflix, walk and drive around with my Google Glasses on and tell time by an Apple watch.

I do seem to watch You Tube a helluva lot these days. :)

[Robert Goren]

Through my apt building I pay $20 bucks for 60 channels which around here is a great deal. I average maybe 1 hour a night of network TV. maybe another hour someplace else and a few minutes of Mike & Mike in the morning. Some football in season and that it is it. I just started Netflix. I am thinking of doing some mix of Netflix, Hulu, etc and dropping the cable. I just don't know yet. Has anybody else done that? If so, who do you use?

[JustRalph]

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/sold-out-aereo-runs-out-capacity-new-york-2D12035046

Sold out in NY ?

Wow........

[tucker6]

I might look into this more after the supremes get done. My cable company is "upgrading" most channels to HD, and now I need to rent a box from them for EACH TV I have at $2 a month. I have six TV's. I'm already paying way too much for the little TV I view, so maybe this is an option for me. What I would like to see is a la carte cable where I could select and pay for the 10 or 12 channels I really want to view.

Read more here about why that may never happen. It's an eye opener:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-a-la-carte-pricing-would-cost-billions-of-dollars-20131204,0,4355658.story#axzz2s4o1fAIk

[FiveWide]

I'd wait until the US Supreme Court makes a ruling, scheduled this summer.

Aereo, which won most of the lower court rulings to date, surprisingly sought a Court ruling along with the consortium of cable companies, TV outlets and content providers.

The content providers have threatened to block their signal if Aereo wins in the US Supreme Court.



When you say content providers are you talking about the local broadcasts? I don't see how that could be blocked since it's a broadcast. Maybe the ISPs might try to do something.

IMO I believe Aereo has a good chance of winning. All the channels I saw them providing were free local channels. A free broadcast is a free broadcast. They are just using a new, or different, technology to get the signal to people. It's not like you can get the signal from anywhere either. You are restricted to you local area. For instance, I'm in Dallas so I could get the free broadcasts as long as I'm within range. I can't go somewhere like Arkansas and get the feed. It's no different than me going and getting an antenna and receiving the free broadcasts. What makes Aereo so attractive, at least for me, is that I don't have to bother with a big antenna to get the signal.

It will be interesting for sure how this shakes out. As Reckless said they have won all the lower court rulings. Let's see what the US Supreme Court says.

-Five

[reckless]

When you say content providers are you talking about the local broadcasts? I don't see how that could be blocked since it's a broadcast. Maybe the ISPs might try to do something.

IMO I believe Aereo has a good chance of winning. All the channels I saw them providing were free local channels. A free broadcast is a free broadcast. They are just using a new, or different, technology to get the signal to people. It's not like you can get the signal from anywhere either. You are restricted to you local area. For instance, I'm in Dallas so I could get the free broadcasts as long as I'm within range. I can't go somewhere like Arkansas and get the feed. It's no different than me going and getting an antenna and receiving the free broadcasts. What makes Aereo so attractive, at least for me, is that I don't have to bother with a big antenna to get the signal.

It will be interesting for sure how this shakes out. As Reckless said they have won all the lower court rulings. Let's see what the US Supreme Court says.

-Five

Hello Five Wide:

As I understand it, it is the local broadcasters that have the most to lose -- at least as I see it by how their business model is made up.

Right now, the local broadcasters (1) provide their content 'free' OTA. This is done to attract the widest audience possible. They then sell advertising of their content to the P & Gs, Cloroxes and Ford Motor companies of the world who hope to reach that wide audience.

In the consumers mind, this OTA content is provided 'free' but truthfully, it is subsidized by heavy advertising support.

The local broadcasters also, (2) charge cable and satellite companies in retransmission fees. Therefore, local broadcasters get paid from two sources for the same content.

Aereo now takes that 'free' OTA signal and sends it through their antennas to their subscribers without paying for that signal provided by the local broadcasters.

It looks like the advertisers should have a beef with the local broadcasters, and the local broadcasters and other distributors--cable and satellite companies--should have a beef with Aereo.

Aereo must and should pay for something, in my opinion.

[JustRalph]

Fox says if Aereo wins in the Supreme Court they will start scrambling their signal........

[Robert Goren]

I have thought for years that broadcasters ought to pay cable companies, etc for making their advertiser back programing to people that would not otherwise have it available to them. A local tv station that isn't on cable isn't reaching very many people for their advertisers.

[FiveWide]

Hello Five Wide:

As I understand it, it is the local broadcasters that have the most to lose -- at least as I see it by how their business model is made up.

Right now, the local broadcasters (1) provide their content 'free' OTA. This is done to attract the widest audience possible. They then sell advertising of their content to the P & Gs, Cloroxes and Ford Motor companies of the world who hope to reach that wide audience.

In the consumers mind, this OTA content is provided 'free' but truthfully, it is subsidized by heavy advertising support.

The local broadcasters also, (2) charge cable and satellite companies in retransmission fees. Therefore, local broadcasters get paid from two sources for the same content.

Aereo now takes that 'free' OTA signal and sends it through their antennas to their subscribers without paying for that signal provided by the local broadcasters.

It looks like the advertisers should have a beef with the local broadcasters, and the local broadcasters and other distributors--cable and satellite companies--should have a beef with Aereo.

Aereo must and should pay for something, in my opinion.

Thanks for clearing some things up for me Reckless.


-Five

[jerry-g]

Local, live, late breaking and free news and sports free over the air isn't going
away. It is the government that said TV stations must have an antennae and
broadcast free over the air. With my Roku box I get lots of free movies and
if I want, I can subscribe to Amazon and they will stream thousands of movies
to my Roku so I can watch in high D and wide screen, for about $88 yearly.
The movie channel I get for free on my local channels and it is on cable too.
Yesterday, I watched Sheena as she took a shower naked under some
waterfall in Africa. The only problem I had was some water must have
splashed on the lens as there were about 2 or 3 areas on her which were
too blurry to make out. Other than that, good movie. Today, I can watch
the Super Bowl free from one of my local channels. What more do I need?
The only real high D is free over the air not on cable or satellite.

[HUSKER55]

TWC and a local TV Station came to a dispute awhile back over fees. TWC said they were not going to pay for something that was transmitted for free.

I guess the TV Station had to pay up because they are back on cable.

IMHO, Alero is just doing the same thing as TWC.

Maybe I am wrong.....

[Saratoga_Mike]

Fox says if Aereo wins in the Supreme Court they will start scrambling their signal........

Exactly right - broadcast TV will become cable TV.

[HUSKER55]

it runs in my mind that the tv stations have to bradcast their signal to everyone thru the antenna, or something to that effect. If so, wouldn't it be illegal to scramble the signal?

[FiveWide]

it runs in my mind that the tv stations have to bradcast their signal to everyone thru the antenna, or something to that effect. If so, wouldn't it be illegal to scramble the signal?


That is what I understand and why I don't see how they can do it. But in the event they somehow do wind up scrambling the signal things will just go back to when cable first came out. People used descramblers out there to get the signal. What can be scrambled can be unscrambled. It happened back in the day and it'll happen again. My guess is there will be some kind of compromise that happens. I bet Aereo will still be able to do what they do but they'll have to pay a re-transmission fee like the cable companies. Then the service won't be $8 a month.


-Five

[JustRalph]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/04/17/aereo-ceo-say-foxs-threat-would-disenfranchise-54-million-people/

They can do what they want. Including stop the local broadcasting through the air. That's the latest threat.......

[JustRalph]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/19/5427994/federal-court-suspends-aereo-internet-tv-service-in-several-us-states

Court rules against Aereo

[JustRalph]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/3/5467702/aereo-white-house-opposition-scotus-retransmission-case

Obama admin files brief against Aereo

[JustRalph]

Decision on Aereo due in next 7 days............

[fast4522]

I would love to see Aereo prevail, but feel SC will protect the institutional owners of the cable company's.

[BettinBilly]

I've left "Cable Television" about six years ago when I went with U-Verse.
They are a bit different since they use telephone twisted pair to deliver the digital signal to an hub in your home then wireless or CATV Cable to go to every set. Their signal is incredibly reliable (like phone service) and incredibly High Def even the non HD channels, and we even use U-Verse phone that is VOIP and when someone calls, you get a caller ID that pops up on your TV Screens. It's pretty convenient. They are not inexpensive, but unfortunately the S.O. and I are kind of addicted to The Travel Channel, A&E, The Smithsonian Channel and HBO. Also, I like HRTV. I'd LOVE TVG, but U-Verse does not carry it.

If we weren't addicted to a few of the cable channels, I'd give up U-Verse and go Broadcast HDTV for local and internet for everything else. With Apple or Amazon or Hulu you can get by. We just prefer not to.... YET.

[johnhannibalsmith]

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that online TV service Aereo Inc, backed by media mogul Barry Diller, violates copyright law by using tiny antennas to provide subscribers with broadcast network content via the Internet.

On a 6-3 vote, the court handed a victory to the four major TV broadcasters and cast Aereo’s immediate future into doubt.

The court said the service constitutes a public performance of copyrighted content. For the networks, the victory protects the estimated $3 billion in so-called retransmission fees that broadcasters get from cable and satellite TV systems.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/25/us-usa-court-television-idUSKBN0F01NK20140625

[JustRalph]

DEAD!

[Tom]

Mentally deranged people who wear black robes strike again.
Of course they were bought off by the industry.

[highnote]

You'd think that broadcasters would want to get their signal out to as many people as possible. Hell, they give it away if you have an antenna because advertisers want to get their message out en masse. Seems to me Aereo was doing broadcasters a favor -- expanding their audience and at no cost to the broadcasters! The broadcasters could charge higher advertising rates and they would have the metrics to justify the increases.

Oh well.

I guess Aereo is kind of like the company that created an app that lets a person with a public parking space sell their space to someone else. The person in the space notifies other drivers via the app that they are about to leave the space and tells them they will hold the parking space until the buyer's car arrives. A cease and desist order was given to the company by one city.