Judge rules against broadcasters, denying injunction against Aereo TV
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Well, that's good news. The judge also seems to be leaning towards Aereo's explanation about multiple antennas making the service legit as each antenna represents a single user. I hope Aereo wins this. The networks seem to be oblivious to what customers want. They need to start listening to users by following the success of upstart companies like Aereo and the popularity of programming downloaded via torrent. People want on-demand access to programming, and they want it in high quality without invasive DRM. Most will gladly pay when the content is served up in that manner. Conversely the networks could use targeted advertising using geo location data from the connected IP's and serve up the content just like they do over the air, free.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Akemi":vv2yqved said:
You forgot reasonably priced! I am not paying more for a digital season when I can get the DVD with shipping for less than half the price!
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Aereo will never win. Even if they win in court, the industry will keep bringing new suits until they run Aereo into bankruptcy. See Sony vs. Bleem. Bleem won the court cases and was still run out of business by Sony lawsuits.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Good ruling. The networks had better adapt and innovate instead of simply suing, or they will fade away within the next few years.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
salamanderjuice":1nflfh6t said:
Unfortunately what has to happen is a LOT of people need to be fired to reduce the costs to just the creation of content. The old broadcast model generated a large gross cash flow, the new one will be lower. Until they are fired, prices can't come down...
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I'm not sure what to think of this....
On one hand, presuming Aereo's isn't misrepresenting the situation, then sure, they should be able to capture and stream to
customers so long as they have antenna to do it with. On that point I hope they win.
On the other hand, the networks need to start offering the services that their customers want, rather than building an environment where Aereo can exist (or is necessary). How inefficient is it to capture, transcode, and stream programs off of antenna for customers? Surely the networks could do all of this cheaper if they wanted. How much power does it take Aereo to run their capture center (I hesitate to call it a data center, I'm sure that's not the point)? How much does it take to cool it?
Or, am I the only one who thinks it is more than a little ridiculous that these video programs are streamed/transmitted from the producing studio to local affiliates, (perhaps transcoded or reformatted), dumped onto the air, captured off the air, (transcoded or reformatted), and finally streamed to the end consumer?
On one hand, presuming Aereo's isn't misrepresenting the situation, then sure, they should be able to capture and stream to
customers so long as they have antenna to do it with. On that point I hope they win.On the other hand, the networks need to start offering the services that their customers want, rather than building an environment where Aereo can exist (or is necessary). How inefficient is it to capture, transcode, and stream
programs off of antenna for customers? Surely the networks could do all of this cheaper if they wanted. How much power does it take Aereo to run their capture center (I hesitate to call it a data center, I'm sure that's not the point)? How much does it take to cool it? Or, am I the only one who thinks it is more than a little ridiculous that these video programs are streamed/transmitted from the producing studio to local affiliates, (perhaps transcoded or reformatted), dumped onto the air, captured off the air, (transcoded or reformatted), and finally streamed to the end consumer?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
its just an antennae? its not providing a tivo like service?
if its just giving a one to one of an antennae signal to the user, no cutting commercials etc, i dont see the big deal.
if its just giving a one to one of an antennae signal to the user, no cutting commercials etc, i dont see the big deal.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
If the claim is that they've got a separate antenna for every user, it seems like a pragmatic lawyer or judge would simply say, "Okay, with no hanky panky behind the scenes, remove this antenna *there* and show me which user just went off the air."
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
killing_time":3fcwa5f8 said:
In a nutshell, it's exactly like sticking an antenna out yer winda' and hooking dat to through a vcr/dvr/etc. then onto yer boobtube.
They don't cut commercials or even give you the option to skip commercials, albeit scrubbing using your finger if you've recorded it. You can jump back 30 secs though.
So they offer a service which one could do if they hooked up a EyeTV or similar device which can then stream to an iPad etc.
I assume the main reason the networks are pissed because they can't monitor who's watching what, where and when, and they're working on their own way to charge the consumer 15 times for the same crap.
Good service btw. I'm a current customer as we didn't want another cable box and all the associated spaghetti in our bedroom, and FiOS has yet to come up with an iPad app for live tv.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
This is great news. The reason the copyright wars are happening, and that RIAA and MPAA and all them are sueing everyone is to keep control of content distribution so that they can maximize profits. If the court system can break that monopoly up, and remove the distribution control with things like first sale (or broadcast in this event) and all that, then that will be awesome, and will take a lot of the wind out of their sales. Once that happens maybe just maybe they'll start bowing to customer demand, and we can have dumb pipes, and pay directly for what we want instead of a huge monthly check to some middleman for a huge massive sludge filled pipe of crap I don't want. Ultimately I'd like to see more projects like Dr. Horrible, The Guild, etc, where I have the option to pay the damn artists not some company that controls the copyright and rapes both me the customer AND the artist making their content for their own profit and pleasure all in the name of access to distribution.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
This is actually very smart too, because its only available within the area in which the actual antennas reside. (i.e NYC)
Had this not been the case, Aereo TV would have never stood a chance..
Had this not been the case, Aereo TV would have never stood a chance..
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Very sensible decision, hopefully it continues on throughout the trial.
Also: Typo
Also: Typo
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
undervillain":1s1einvj said:How inefficient is it to capture, transcode, and stream
I'm not actually sure "transcoding" is necessary.
"Just" wrapping the raw bits you received should do. No?
Plus:
This is something I've wanted to do with radio.
15x RadioShark-like devices running full tilt and a music-lookup service -> pretty much any song you want to listen to -EVAR- is rerecorded via the 'timeshifting' bits that allowed the original VCRs to fly.
"I recorded it for -me-, and I just haven't listened to this particular instance yet."
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I'll cheer for Aero to win this case, but I can't help sighing over the fact that it is necessary for a company like Aero to even exist. This illustrates perfectly the absurdity of what happens when innovators are forced to engineer around ridiculous legal barriers rather practical ones. Has copyright law really gotten to the point where the legality of a business will turn on whether each receiving element is considered an independent antenna or whether it's all considered one antenna because all the receiving elements are part of the same array and share a common reflector? What relationship does that possibly have to promoting science and the useful arts, other than fostering creative schemes to get around the ridiculous impositions of copyright law? And that by creating systems which are incredibly wasteful and inefficient and are designed solely to fit through a legal loophole rather than meet any true necessity. If this is the lengths we have to go to now to be able to provide innovative services, we are truly doomed.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I think the fact that crap like this:
Is even in question tells me that the law is utterly ridiculous. And can someone tell me under what circumstances a broadcaster can possibly be harmed by exposing even more people to their advertising? What do the claims of harm even look like in this stack of used toilet paper "broadcasters" have submitted to the court?
Is even in question tells me that the law is utterly ridiculous. And can someone tell me under what circumstances a broadcaster can possibly be harmed by exposing even more people to their advertising? What do the claims of harm even look like in this stack of used toilet paper "broadcasters" have submitted to the court?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I don't get this attitude or mentality at all. The networks don't charge you anything for their content if you watch it as broadcast, hell some of them even let you watch their stuff for free online. All they ask you for in return is the possible use of your eyeballs for adverts; you don't have to watch the adverts, you don't have to pay attention to the adverts, you don't even have to be in the same room as the adverts. This is how they make their money to make the programmes that you watch. You can whinge, whine and bitch about copyright holders overgcharging, but I don't see how you can attack the broadcasters for this when you're receiving their product for free. Next you'll expect to get paid to watch their stuff.mlubrov":2c9cavbg said:
Of course you want everything for free. That's why the current generation are killing the creative arts.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
HKPhooey":j2yh1x6f said:
Yes, clearly he wants everything for free. Which is why he stated:
"nce that happens maybe just maybe they'll start bowing to customer demand, and we can have dumb pipes, and pay directly for what we want instead of a huge monthly check to some middleman for a huge massive sludge filled pipe of crap I don't want. Ultimately I'd like to see more projects like Dr. Horrible, The Guild, etc, where I have the option to pay the damn artists not some company that controls the copyright and rapes both me the customer AND the artist making their content for their own profit and pleasure all in the name of access to distribution.
Yeah, clearly a freeloader.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Abhi Beckert
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
HKPhooey":y8mfot1j said:
My favourite TV shows are often running when I'm at work, or asleep, or out shopping, or maybe two of my favourite shows are on at the same time. And there are other times, when I do want to watch some TV, but everything currently available is utter shit. And if the phone rings in the middle of a game, I wanna be able to pause it until the call finishes.
Those are the main reasons I record TV, but it's a complicated process and I would love to outsource to datacentre somewhere. This service doesn't offer that, but it's a step in the right direction.
Also I'm sick of watching the same bullshit minivan commercial over and over and OVER and O_V_E_R when there is no way in fscking hell I am ever going to buy a minivan. I'm fine with ads, sometimes while mashing the fast forward button down through commercials I'll actually grab the rewind button so I can watch an ad. But most of them are crap, and it's not benefiting anyone for me to watch them.
Some shows are available as pay-per-view, and I've bought many of those. But most of my favourite stuff isn't.
I don't hold it against the recording studios... I'm just frustrated at their stupidity/unwillingness to do something about it. I do, however, get angry when they try to drive innovators like Aereo and Netflix and iTunes out of the market, whether with court cases or by withholding content.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Nevyn":2bbva4zg said:undervillain":2bbva4zg said:How inefficient is it to capture, transcode, and stream
I'm not actually sure "transcoding" is necessary.
"Just" wrapping the raw bits you received should do. No?
Plus:
This is something I've wanted to do with radio.
15x RadioShark-like devices running full tilt and a music-lookup service -> pretty much any song you want to listen to -EVAR- is rerecorded via the 'timeshifting' bits that allowed the original VCRs to fly.
"I recorded it for -me-, and I just haven't listened to this particular instance yet."
Transcoding is necessary as the antenna signal is analog, not digital. It has to translate from NTSC or PAL analog format to a digital format so it has bits that can be transmitted via the Internet.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
aroni125":31gfce6i said:Nevyn":31gfce6i said:undervillain":31gfce6i said:How inefficient is it to capture, transcode, and stream
I'm not actually sure "transcoding" is necessary.
"Just" wrapping the raw bits you received should do. No?
Plus:
This is something I've wanted to do with radio.
15x RadioShark-like devices running full tilt and a music-lookup service -> pretty much any song you want to listen to -EVAR- is rerecorded via the 'timeshifting' bits that allowed the original VCRs to fly.
"I recorded it for -me-, and I just haven't listened to this particular instance yet."
Transcoding is necessary as the antenna signal is analog, not digital. It has to translate from NTSC or PAL analog format to a digital format so it has bits that can be transmitted via the Internet.
Over the air broadcasts haven't been analog in the US for some time.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Akemi":38x0sn6f said:aroni125":38x0sn6f said:Nevyn":38x0sn6f said:undervillain":38x0sn6f said:How inefficient is it to capture, transcode, and stream
I'm not actually sure "transcoding" is necessary.
"Just" wrapping the raw bits you received should do. No?
Plus:
This is something I've wanted to do with radio.
15x RadioShark-like devices running full tilt and a music-lookup service -> pretty much any song you want to listen to -EVAR- is rerecorded via the 'timeshifting' bits that allowed the original VCRs to fly.
"I recorded it for -me-, and I just haven't listened to this particular instance yet."
Transcoding is necessary as the antenna signal is analog, not digital. It has to translate from NTSC or PAL analog format to a digital format so it has bits that can be transmitted via the Internet.
Over the air broadcasts haven't been analog in the US for some time.
Good point. It would depend on how their system works, then, whether it's converted back to an analog signal or not. ATSC is what is used for digital over-the-air; it is possible a consumer's device could understand it, but it could possibily be transcoded into a different format, especially if they wanted to avoid licensing issues. (ATSC uses MPEG-2 and AC-3)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
This service is letting you watch things in a manner practically identical to broadcast. Aereo just happens to make it more convenient, you know, like the VCR did. The same people were fighting against that as well.HKPhooey":2s1ub7xr said:
You can't kill the creative arts unless you wipe out humanity. In Trinidad and Tobago, after some riots, they took away their native percussion after a riot. The people replaced them with bamboo sticks later, and those were eventually banned as well. Then, the people created an entirely new kind of instrument, steel pans to replace the bamboo sticks.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Recently, there seems to have been a lot of articles about judges who would be eligible for a seat in the Oval Office. I like the direction where this is going. First SOPA/PIPA, then ACTA and many other smaller victories.
In Finland we won't have any problems with OTA freeloaders next year when everyone will get the honor of paying for the national TV broadcasts in their taxes, regardless of them even owning a receiver. I have seven, so I'm happy.
In Finland we won't have any problems with OTA freeloaders next year when everyone will get the honor of paying for the national TV broadcasts in their taxes, regardless of them even owning a receiver. I have seven, so I'm happy.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Aside from the (potentially) lost revenue of cable accounts, this looks like a potential boon to the broadcasters...
If the transmission isn't being modified in any way (i.e. cutting/replacing advertising content), broadcasters could actually claim a greater viewership, and demand higher advertising rates. And, being distributed online, there are concrete statistics to sell to advertisers, unlike the airwaves.
On the cable/broadband issue, perhaps a "separation of church and state" is needed. Being that the cost of supplying bandwidth is decreasing and service charges are increasing, there is obviously some major profit being taken. Some may suggest market forces could balance this out--but how could an upstart become a major player without the massive upfront costs of building infrastructure?
If the transmission isn't being modified in any way (i.e. cutting/replacing advertising content), broadcasters could actually claim a greater viewership, and demand higher advertising rates. And, being distributed online, there are concrete statistics to sell to advertisers, unlike the airwaves.
On the cable/broadband issue, perhaps a "separation of church and state" is needed. Being that the cost of supplying bandwidth is decreasing and service charges are increasing, there is obviously some major profit being taken. Some may suggest market forces could balance this out--but how could an upstart become a major player without the massive upfront costs of building infrastructure?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
It seems rather obvious that consumers have a large demand for -new- models to consume content. See iTunes, Netflix, DVR, etc. Since the content creators have to be in bed with the providers (via distribution contracts and deals), why don't the telecoms take the information they have about their consumers (age bracket, location, etc) and use the boxes in our houses to see what we watch, and then create a new model: You pay for a set of channels you want, and they create targeted advertising that is actually relevant to the viewer?
We have computers (digital cable boxes) sitting next to our tvs that -could- know what channel we watch, when we watch them, what shows we like, and what ads we skip. Why not USE that information to serve up content -and- ads that are relevant when the consumer wants it? Both sides might actually win. I'd be much more likely to watch ads for, say, video games, web services, and more niche products that I would want than for feminine hygiene products or questionable pharmaceuticals that do not have any bearing on me (being a male with no chronic diseases).
So frustrating.
We have computers (digital cable boxes) sitting next to our tvs that -could- know what channel we watch, when we watch them, what shows we like, and what ads we skip. Why not USE that information to serve up content -and- ads that are relevant when the consumer wants it? Both sides might actually win. I'd be much more likely to watch ads for, say, video games, web services, and more niche products that I would want than for feminine hygiene products or questionable pharmaceuticals that do not have any bearing on me (being a male with no chronic diseases).
So frustrating.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I don't see why they would need separate antenna for each user, only separate tuners. I mean each antenna is sitting in the same air space as the next antenna. For OTA customers there's no distinct signal path for the original broadcaster to know which radio wave a user is receiving once it leaves the radio transmitter so why would the internet conversion need a distinct signal path for each user?
The third step of course is that why should you then need to maintain separate tuners per user when you could just maintain separate multi-cast streams that the user could tune in to from the computer end. Then it would really just be converting the multi-end-point radio signal into a multi-end-point internet signal ... something the broadcast studio should have already been implementing for their viewers anyway before it makes it to the radio transmitter.
The third step of course is that why should you then need to maintain separate tuners per user when you could just maintain separate multi-cast streams that the user could tune in to from the computer end. Then it would really just be converting the multi-end-point radio signal into a multi-end-point internet signal ... something the broadcast studio should have already been implementing for their viewers anyway before it makes it to the radio transmitter.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
If you are a broadcaster who, by definition, ...broadcasts, seems like you would want your signal to go to the broadest available audience. If someone was willing to get more viewers for you, how exactly is that bad?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
mattclary":27z3t2hr said:
I'm not sure if you've been following intellectual property and electronic media for the last 40 years, but it's not about money (they have lots of that). It's about control.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Wait, wait...
I think they are helping the networks, not hurting. This is being done in downtown Manhattan, where it is very difficult to receive over the air tv signals. Aereo is directly targetting those who normally can't receive FREE signal and providing a way for users to see that signal.
They aren't cutting commercials, they aren't providing a watch what you want service. So they are increasing the viewing audience of those free channels, and thus, increasing the value of commercials on those channels, which is how they make money! How is this "irreparable harm?" Aereo is indirectly increasing the value of CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX, costing them nothing and helping to stave off cable in the area.
Might it be illegal to sell a another's service? Maybe, we haven't gotten to that phase yet, but irreparable harm? No way, they're helping the broadcasting companies!
I think they are helping the networks, not hurting. This is being done in downtown Manhattan, where it is very difficult to receive over the air tv signals. Aereo is directly targetting those who normally can't receive FREE signal and providing a way for users to see that signal.
They aren't cutting commercials, they aren't providing a watch what you want service. So they are increasing the viewing audience of those free channels, and thus, increasing the value of commercials on those channels, which is how they make money! How is this "irreparable harm?" Aereo is indirectly increasing the value of CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX, costing them nothing and helping to stave off cable in the area.
Might it be illegal to sell a another's service? Maybe, we haven't gotten to that phase yet, but irreparable harm? No way, they're helping the broadcasting companies!
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
pixelstuff":23i8uldk said:
They can't do this, because it's precisely what cable did in it's early years--one big ass antenna feeding a turner for each channel received, then rebroadcast over the cable service. The broadcasters had a shitstorm and made the cablecos pay a "rebroadcast" fee. Aereo's entire setup, as ridiculously redundant as it may be, is to dodge the fee. Whether Aereo has to pay the fee will come down to whether the cablecos' setup was the issue or the fact that they were charging money for the broadcast.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
aroni125":o7ftcpfx said:Akemi":o7ftcpfx said:aroni125":o7ftcpfx said:Nevyn":o7ftcpfx said:undervillain":o7ftcpfx said:How inefficient is it to capture, transcode, and stream
I'm not actually sure "transcoding" is necessary.
"Just" wrapping the raw bits you received should do. No?
Plus:
This is something I've wanted to do with radio.
15x RadioShark-like devices running full tilt and a music-lookup service -> pretty much any song you want to listen to -EVAR- is rerecorded via the 'timeshifting' bits that allowed the original VCRs to fly.
"I recorded it for -me-, and I just haven't listened to this particular instance yet."
Transcoding is necessary as the antenna signal is analog, not digital. It has to translate from NTSC or PAL analog format to a digital format so it has bits that can be transmitted via the Internet.
Over the air broadcasts haven't been analog in the US for some time.
Good point. It would depend on how their system works, then, whether it's converted back to an analog signal or not. ATSC is what is used for digital over-the-air; it is possible a consumer's device could understand it, but it could possibily be transcoded into a different format, especially if they wanted to avoid licensing issues. (ATSC uses MPEG-2 and AC-3)
ATSC streams can be up to ~18mbps. The vast majority of American internet users can't handle that.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
foofoo22":2slx8lkg said:
The "Hollywood" style of production management is what's costing them. The number of people not directly involved in a shot who just stand around the set is ridiculous. If even half of them had to go to make productions profitable, so be it. And while your cutting dead weight, cut the fat cats on top who do little to nothing for their massive salaries that cost more than all of those underlings combined.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
The "antenna for every user" argument sounds similar to arguments made for some digital music lockers. I seem to recall Amazon saying its locker service and cloud MP3 player were legit when they were first launched without the need for additional licensing agreements with the record companies. I think that part of the argument for legitimacy (under copyright laws) was that each users files were separate and distinct from every other user's files. That is, if two users each have the same song and they each play that song through Amazon's cloud player, those users would not be accessing the same file on Amazon's servers--each user has his/her own unique version.
Although that's ridiculously inefficient and, to my knowledge, Amazon has not demonstrated that it maintains files in that manner, the same principle should apply to Aereo. If Aereo has a separate antenna for each user, Aereo can claim that each user has his/her own distinct version of the broadcast signal. Just as Amazon acts as a go between for the content source (purchased song on Amazon servers) and consumption medium (online cloud player); Aereo can do the same (free broadcast signal --> online TV). I see no problem.
Although that's ridiculously inefficient and, to my knowledge, Amazon has not demonstrated that it maintains files in that manner, the same principle should apply to Aereo. If Aereo has a separate antenna for each user, Aereo can claim that each user has his/her own distinct version of the broadcast signal. Just as Amazon acts as a go between for the content source (purchased song on Amazon servers) and consumption medium (online cloud player); Aereo can do the same (free broadcast signal --> online TV). I see no problem.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Killing the creative arts? That's just stupid. We have to pay to watch their stupid advers. I would gladly pay for what I want, when I want it, but the stupid broadcasters still want me to pay and then watch their advertisements too. You have the gall to call broadcast TV creative art? LMFAOHKPhooey":1blri1bk said:
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
HKPhooey":3scsystn said:
It's not about free. The creative arts in this scenario are the people who are making the craptastic cable channels that the communication companies are literally forced to buy as a part of a bundle. How many people here watch Big Ten Network or QVC or cornerstone? Yet we're force dot pay for them and forced to spend an extra five minutes trying to find something worthwhile in the bloated on-screen menu of doom.
Let the free markets decide which channels and networks should survive or die. It's the American solution.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Arsification":10eh563r said:
Yes - all the quality programming with the massive ratings - it's an artistic marvel...
Art has never been a good companion to free markets - and I for one am happy to have a shared pot of money which allows quality shows to get made on the coattails of others. If it means having to spend 1/2 a second skipping over QVC, then so be it.
Back on topic - hopefully this is part of a trend where injunctions are less used as a cudgel to kill off companies without the pesky need to actually prove ones point in court. They should only be used where there is obvious and immediate hard being caused RIGHT NOW - and certainly not in favour of massive rich companies verses tiny startups.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I don't think the tech matters. It you take money from the **AA and big media, they will hunt you till either they run out of money or you do. The law is just a technicality to be avoided. Aereo is a marked company and will be dead within 3 years.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
This is exactly why I roll my eyes every time I hear Ron Paul saying we don't need regulations because people will be able to settle their differences in the civil court system. I have a hard time believing that the poor people of Shantyville will really be able to combat the Globex Corporation in court when they start dumping the toxic waste bi-product of the weather dominator machine in their backyards.TechGeek":3k7gkxwn said:
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
rpgspree":1lvcq9jr said:aroni125":1lvcq9jr said:Akemi":1lvcq9jr said:aroni125":1lvcq9jr said:Nevyn":1lvcq9jr said:undervillain":1lvcq9jr said:How inefficient is it to capture, transcode, and stream
I'm not actually sure "transcoding" is necessary.
"Just" wrapping the raw bits you received should do. No?
Plus:
This is something I've wanted to do with radio.
15x RadioShark-like devices running full tilt and a music-lookup service -> pretty much any song you want to listen to -EVAR- is rerecorded via the 'timeshifting' bits that allowed the original VCRs to fly.
"I recorded it for -me-, and I just haven't listened to this particular instance yet."
Transcoding is necessary as the antenna signal is analog, not digital. It has to translate from NTSC or PAL analog format to a digital format so it has bits that can be transmitted via the Internet.
Over the air broadcasts haven't been analog in the US for some time.
Good point. It would depend on how their system works, then, whether it's converted back to an analog signal or not. ATSC is what is used for digital over-the-air; it is possible a consumer's device could understand it, but it could possibily be transcoded into a different format, especially if they wanted to avoid licensing issues. (ATSC uses MPEG-2 and AC-3)
ATSC streams can be up to ~18mbps. The vast majority of American internet users can't handle that.
No matter the format of the broadcast (digital or analog), no matter the format of the stream...whether transcoding/converting to a lower bitrate or not...I should have just said, "That's one hell of a lot of capture interfaces!" and been done with it. I don't know exactly what transformations they have to do to the actual data in order to make it consumable for the end user, but presumably if they have an antenna for each user, they must have a capture card for each antenna, or the whole scheme falls apart (from a protect-us-from-infringement perspective). I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that would have to be the case in order to make their argument valid.
So, how many customers do they have? If they have 1000 antennas somewhere in their "data center", does that mean they have 1000 video capture cards plugged into computers all around the place? It just seems like a waste of hardware, but it is the sad consequence of the media industry that we've created.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
- Status