Don't miss what's happening in Kingwood
People on Kingwood.com are the first to know.
Go to top of page
Close
 
Close
Back
* CONTEST TODAY: 24 Hours Only - Win a $25 Gift Card to Panera Bread!  Ends in 22 hrs Read more »

Aereo vs. Broadcast Networks

Aereo vs. Broadcast Networks

« Back
This discussion has been locked.
Message Menu
by: rocket Active Indicator LED Icon 3 OP 
~ 9 years ago   Apr 23, '14 9:35am  
As you may know a company named Aero and television broadcasters have a major case before the supreme court.  The issue is Aero records over the air broadcast from the major networks, which is obtained for free, and then provides that content to their subscribers so that they can view it on demand over their phones or computers via a special antenna.  The broadcasters contend that Aero violates copyright laws by intercepting the signals.  Aero subscribers pay approximately $8 a month which is a far cry from fees to watch the same content over cable or satellite.   The broadcasters have threatened to take away free over the air content if they lose the case and instead move to a pay for view model.Apparently Aero is available in Houston.  Does anyone here or someone you know use it?  gigaom.com/2014/04/2 2/aereo-at-the-supre me-court-a-cheat-she et-to-the-bigge 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
What are your thoughts? Log in or sign up to comment
Replies:
Message Menu
djohn78 Active Indicator LED Icon 1
~ 9 years ago   Apr 23, '14 10:20am  
I have tried it. It does work well 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
squirtismyboy Active Indicator LED Icon 16
~ 9 years ago   Apr 23, '14 11:15am  
I might try it and get rid of suddenlink if I like it 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
KingwoodDotCom Active Indicator LED Icon 18 Site Admin
~ 9 years ago   Apr 23, '14 12:00pm  
As you may know a company named Aero and television broadcasters have a major case before the supreme court.  The issue is Aero records over the air broadcast from the major networks, which is obtained for free, and then provides that content to their subscribers so that they can view it on demand over their phones or computers via a special antenna.  The broadcasters contend that Aero violates copyright laws by intercepting the signals.  Aero subscribers pay approximately $8 a month which is a far cry from fees to watch the same content over cable or satellite.   The broadcasters have threatened to take away free over the air content if they lose the case and instead move to a pay for view model.Apparently Aero is available in Houston.  Does anyone here or someone you know use it?  gigaom.com/2014/04/2 2/aereo-at-the-supre me-court-a-cheat-she et-to-the-bigge
 
@rocket: Thanks -- Last time I checked, it wasn't available in Houston yet...looks like it is available now! I hope they don't get squashed.
4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
ProblemAgain Active Indicator LED Icon 10
~ 9 years ago   Apr 23, '14 1:49pm  
broadcasters can't 'take away' free over the air content. that's part of those pesky fcc regulations about public airwaves that require a broadcaster to be a broadcaster, not just a cable provider. those were set so you yourself can put an antenna up and catch signals to watch television programming off the airwaves. and this close to houston, you can do just that. you'll get the broadcast stations like pbs, nbc, cbs, abc and fox as well as a ton of others like the movie channel, the kube etc. 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
IBertrand Active Indicator LED Icon
~ 9 years ago   Apr 23, '14 1:49pm  
If there were not so many other shows I watch I would totally get on top of this.  Just saw that at the end of May users will be able to use their ChromeCast with it...another good selling point. 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
rocket Active Indicator LED Icon 3 OP 
~ 9 years ago   Apr 23, '14 2:13pm  
I'm conflicted on this one.  I can understand why the broadcasters are upset.  They are putting in millions of dollars to produce shows and sporting events.  To recoup some of this expense they charge advertisers for air time to peddle their products.  Now here comes this company that hasn't invested a thing in the production process nor has paid fees to rebroadcast the content, yet they are making a profit from it.It's akin to getting into your neighbors Wi-Fi network and resending the signal to a third party at a profit.  On the other hand people fear any regulation of Internet content will be the opening salvo of increased cost for access and limited options if companies are force to pay copyright fees.It'll be interesting to see how the supreme court rules on this. 4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
IBertrand Active Indicator LED Icon
~ 9 years ago   Apr 23, '14 2:34pm  
I'm conflicted on this one.  I can understand why the broadcasters are upset.  They are putting in millions of dollars to produce shows and sporting events.  To recoup some of this expense they charge advertisers for air time to peddle their products.  Now here comes this company that hasn't invested a thing in the production process nor has paid fees to rebroadcast the content, yet they are making a profit from it.It's akin to getting into your neighbors Wi-Fi network and resending the signal to a third party at a profit.  On the other hand people fear any regulation of Internet content will be the opening salvo of increased cost for access and limited options if companies are force to pay copyright fees.It'll be interesting to see how the supreme court rules on this.
 
@rocket: I can see that point of view...but take it a different direction on it.One could spend $20 (just an example) to purchase an antennae and get the channels for free.  The broadcasters are completely fine with this.  What if I told you for $8 a month, you can use my antennae and not only get it on your TV but your mobile devices as well.  It is the same antennae just not limited to your tv.  What difference does it make where the antennae is...the signal is free and designed that way by the FCC.  No laws are broken just a lot of butthurt because the broadcast companies are not doing it.Tech is changing to match how we consume our information.  If the broadcast companies dont jump on board they are doomed to fail.  Examples...Blockbuster, Virgin Record Store.The biggest issue the broadcasters have is they cannot accepted the loss in profits.
4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
rocket Active Indicator LED Icon 3 OP 
~ 9 years ago   Apr 23, '14 2:46pm  

- - - - - - - -
>> I'm conflicted on this one.  I can understand why the broadcasters are upset.  They are putting in millions of dollars to produce shows and sporting events.  To recoup some of this expense they charge advertisers for air time to peddle their products.  Now here comes this company that hasn't invested a thing in the production process nor has paid fees to rebroadcast the content, yet they are making a profit from it.It's akin to getting into your neighbors Wi-Fi network and resending the signal to a third party at a profit.  On the other hand people fear any regulation of Internet content will be the opening salvo of increased cost for access and limited options if companies are force to pay copyright fees.It'll be interesting to see how the supreme court rules on this.
 
@rocket: I can see that point of view...but take it a different direction on it.One could spend $20 (just an example) to purchase an antennae and get the channels for free.  The broadcasters are completely fine with this.  What if I told you for $8 a month, you can use my antennae and not only get it on your TV but your mobile devices as well.  It is the same antennae just not limited to your tv.  What difference does it make where the antennae is...the signal is free and designed that way by the FCC.  No laws are broken just a lot of butthurt because the broadcast companies are not doing it.Tech is changing to match how we consume our information.  If the broadcast companies dont jump on board they are doomed to fail.  Examples...Blockbuster, Virgin Record Store.The biggest issue the broadcasters have is they cannot accepted the loss in profits.
 
@IBertrand: I can see your point of view as well.  As I said I'm conflicted.  If the supreme court rules in the broadcasters favor I doubt Aereo will go away.  They will have to pay the networks rights fees and unfortunately pass the cost on to the consumer.  Interesting case in that what happens here will have a major impact in regards to Internet content now and in the future.
4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
Message Menu
ProblemAgain Active Indicator LED Icon 10
~ 9 years ago   Apr 23, '14 5:14pm  

- - - - - - - -
>>
- - - - - - - -
>> I'm conflicted on this one.  I can understand why the broadcasters are upset.  They are putting in millions of dollars to produce shows and sporting events.  To recoup some of this expense they charge advertisers for air time to peddle their products.  Now here comes this company that hasn't invested a thing in the production process nor has paid fees to rebroadcast the content, yet they are making a profit from it.It's akin to getting into your neighbors Wi-Fi network and resending the signal to a third party at a profit.  On the other hand people fear any regulation of Internet content will be the opening salvo of increased cost for access and limited options if companies are force to pay copyright fees.It'll be interesting to see how the supreme court rules on this.
 
@rocket: I can see that point of view...but take it a different direction on it.One could spend $20 (just an example) to purchase an antennae and get the channels for free.  The broadcasters are completely fine with this.  What if I told you for $8 a month, you can use my antennae and not only get it on your TV but your mobile devices as well.  It is the same antennae just not limited to your tv.  What difference does it make where the antennae is...the signal is free and designed that way by the FCC.  No laws are broken just a lot of butthurt because the broadcast companies are not doing it.Tech is changing to match how we consume our information.  If the broadcast companies dont jump on board they are doomed to fail.  Examples...Blockbuster, Virgin Record Store.The biggest issue the broadcasters have is they cannot accepted the loss in profits.
 
@IBertrand: I can see your point of view as well.  As I said I'm conflicted.  If the supreme court rules in the broadcasters favor I doubt Aereo will go away.  They will have to pay the networks rights fees and unfortunately pass the cost on to the consumer.  Interesting case in that what happens here will have a major impact in regards to Internet content now and in the future.
 
@rocket: the difference is that the broadcast caught by your antenna comes complete with commercials which is what pays the broadcasting company. if you like watching xyz, you have to tolerate 15 minutes of crap per hour to watch it. now if aero broadcasts that without commercials, there is a change in what you are able to view. and either way, your eyeballs are not counted as a viewer for the network which skews the ad rates for the commercials downward. it is much the same as as clicks for the internet that pay for 'free sites'
4951
* Reactions disabled on political threads.
This discussion has been locked.
« Back to Main Page
Views: 2
# Replies: 9

Weight Loss Now - Kingwood




Flowers of Kingwood Logo Anytime Pest Elimination  Logo T.A.P.S Home Repair & Remodeling  Logo The Nathaniel Center Logo J & M Construction & Remodeling Co. Logo Elite Hospital Kingwood Logo McNamara Law Office, PLLC Logo Club Z! In Home & Online Tutoring Services of Kingwood Logo Town Center Park Association Logo Primrose School of Eagle Springs Logo Ava Wray Boutique Logo Kingwood Mulch & Stone - Supplier / Wholesaler Logo Maid Zen Cleaning Service Logo Celebrity Hair Styles Logo Dale P. Guidry - State Farm Insurance Logo Superior Janitorial Services Logo Mammoth Cleaning Services Logo Abbie's Plumbing LLC Logo Fox Family Pools Logo Camp Olympia Logo Decker's Carpet Cleaning Logo Houston Hyperbaric Oxygen Center Logo
Sponsor an ad Sponsor an Ad »