• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Aereo TV Service

Should Aereo pay for rebroadcast fee's to the Networks?

  • It's a cheap service, don't care.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
33,000
Reaction score
13,973
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Aereo Internet service vs. TV broadcasters: US Supreme Court to decide

Aereo has got a case going before the Supreme Court, to rule on, whether they can rebroadcast Network TV, over the Internet, for a cheaper alternative service to the big providers.



The US Supreme Court takes up a major case this week that could dramatically change how Americans watch television.

The case involves a New York-based company that charges $8 a month to allow subscribers to watch broadcast television programs on their computer, tablet, or smart phone via the Internet.

The company, Aereo, Inc., can keep its subscription price low in part because it pays nothing – zero – to the major broadcast companies for access to their programming.

The broadcast companies aren’t happy about it. They sued Aereo, claiming the little firm is stealing their copyright-protected programming and re-transmitting it to Aereo subscribers.

Lawyers for Aereo dispute the theft charge. They insist that the company is under no legal obligation to pay for network programming because that programming is offered free-of-charge to the public over public airwaves.

On Tuesday, the issue arrives for oral argument at the Supreme Court, where the justices will examine whether Aereo is violating terms of the federal Copyright Act or merely facilitating better antenna reception of freely-available broadcast signals for Aereo subscribers.
 
Aereo Internet service vs. TV broadcasters: US Supreme Court to decide

Aereo has got a case going before the Supreme Court, to rule on, whether they can rebroadcast Network TV, over the Internet, for a cheaper alternative service to the big providers.

Dunno, one has to pay a fee to a public library to access, and I guess you can use the word "consume", or make use of tons of copyrighted information. I'm pretty sure that libraries don't pay royalties to authors every time a book is checked out.

Just saying... :shrug:
 
It is simple here in Europe. The rule is, if you have a free to view channel on traditional tv, then you can rebroadcast that channel across the whole union. Hence BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and 5 in the UK, which are all free to view, can be rebroadcast across the internet and the channels cant do a damn thing about it. Now if they put up a pay wall aka scrambled the signal then it would be illegal of course to rebroadcast it.
 
Dunno, one has to pay a fee to a public library to access, and I guess you can use the word "consume", or make use of tons of copyrighted information. I'm pretty sure that libraries don't pay royalties to authors every time a book is checked out.

Just saying... :shrug:

Huh? Things must've changed since my last library visit, 10 years ago. I've never paid to use a public library unless I returned something past it's due date.
 
Huh? Things must've changed since my last library visit, 10 years ago. I've never paid to use a public library unless I returned something past it's due date.

You're right...my wife and I were just discussing this...and we have a village library in the town nearest us, which technically isn't a public library like say in Austin. Austin simply requires one to be a resident and there's no fee.

Sooo? I think the community/village library isn't supported like the Austin Public Library. I think they have like a $10 annual fee or something.

Well, dunno how Aereo is going to pull it off then. If they provided a free app...then maybe.
 
I tend to support Aereo's position as long as they do not strip out the broadcaster's commercials. The reason broadcasters oppose Aereo is that they can negotiate retransmission fees from cable providers. If Aereo is successful, broadcasters will not be able to obtain as much in retransmission fees from the cable operators. Note that broadcasters have been allowed to successfully shutdown websites retransmitting television broadcasts, although I don't recall the issue going to the Supremes.
 
I tend to support Aereo's position as long as they do not strip out the broadcaster's commercials. The reason broadcasters oppose Aereo is that they can negotiate retransmission fees from cable providers. If Aereo is successful, broadcasters will not be able to obtain as much in retransmission fees from the cable operators. Note that broadcasters have been allowed to successfully shutdown websites retransmitting television broadcasts, although I don't recall the issue going to the Supremes.

I've actually found quite a few that rebroadcast (perhaps that's not the right term, they are posted online after the fact, not direct live streaming) without commercials, most seem to be .eu, so I'm guessing they are in Europe, however they are reliably there every time I go to watch, including HBO series and such. I wonder how they are getting away with it.
 
It is simple here in Europe. The rule is, if you have a free to view channel on traditional tv, then you can rebroadcast that channel across the whole union. Hence BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and 5 in the UK, which are all free to view, can be rebroadcast across the internet and the channels cant do a damn thing about it. Now if they put up a pay wall aka scrambled the signal then it would be illegal of course to rebroadcast it.

BBC cannot be rebroadcast for free. You folks pay for your basic TV service, it's not free at all.
 
I've actually found quite a few that rebroadcast (perhaps that's not the right term, they are posted online after the fact, not direct live streaming) without commercials, most seem to be .eu, so I'm guessing they are in Europe, however they are reliably there every time I go to watch, including HBO series and such. I wonder how they are getting away with it.

They get away with it only until they're shut down, and then another pops up. It's like playing wack a mole for the broadcasters.
 
I think if they are rebroadcast with the commercials/ads in place then it should be no harm, no foul as their (major broadcasters) primary income source will still be intact upon re-transmission.

I think your thoughts might be a better example than mine was regarding Libraries. But the target audiences might be diluted or viewer numbers might not be as traceable for companies who pay for time.

Something is telling me that this is more complex than my little mind can figure out.
 
They get away with it only until they're shut down, and then another pops up. It's like playing wack a mole for the broadcasters.

I agree in that it was my experience as well for a long time, but these two I have at the ready now, they're always there. Sometimes a video will be gone, but there are dozens of others of the same episode to choose from, and often it's clearly a re-upload from one that was taken down. I'm surprisingly being able to keep abreast of nearly any show even though I have no cable, only an hd antenna/tuner dongle for some local network broadcasts, and the internet.
 
I think your thoughts might be a better example than mine was regarding Libraries. But the target audiences might be diluted or viewer numbers might not be as traceable for companies who pay for time.

Something is telling me that this is more complex than my little mind can figure out.

Regardless, the advertiser is getting more eyes than it would if it weren't being offered by Aereo or other similar, so they are getting more for their buck. As for the networks, they've already been paid. I think what it might be, the more complex aspect, is that cable providers pay a rebroadcast fee, if Aereo doesn't have to, then cable/satellite providers will demand equal treatment and that could be a set back, though I never understood why cable companies should have had to pay those fees. Again, if the ads are intact, it should be able to be broadcast, rebroadcast, and rebroadcast again because originally it was free to anyone with an antenna that could receive it.
 
From what I've read about this case, Aereo isn't rebroadcasting anything, it's providing subscribers with an antenna service.

I am going to guess that Aereo will win this case.
Yes, and I agree, but cable/satellite providers pay a whole lot to effectively provide the same end result. Aereo isn't just an antenna, it's an antenna for their own retransmissions of channels, that's why there are so many channels available, not just the ones in your area. My tuner/antenna for the laptop only gets local channels, ie what you're talking about. Aereo is more, it is a true rebroadcaster essentially the same as cable/satellite. If my reading of it is accurate anyway.
 
You're right...my wife and I were just discussing this...and we have a village library in the town nearest us, which technically isn't a public library like say in Austin. Austin simply requires one to be a resident and there's no fee.

Sooo? I think the community/village library isn't supported like the Austin Public Library. I think they have like a $10 annual fee or something.

Well, dunno how Aereo is going to pull it off then. If they provided a free app...then maybe.




Aereo provides its customers with an antenna service which they pay a small fee for.
 
Yes, and I agree, but cable/satellite providers pay a whole lot to effectively provide the same end result. Aereo isn't just an antenna, it's an antenna for their own retransmissions of channels, that's why there are so many channels available, not just the ones in your area. My tuner/antenna for the laptop only gets local channels, ie what you're talking about.
Aereo is more, it is a true rebroadcaster essentially the same as cable/satellite. If my reading of it is accurate anyway.




Maybe so, but that's not what I've read.

I will be interested to see what the US Supreme court decides.
 
Maybe so, but that's not what I've read.

I will be interested to see what the US Supreme court decides.
I went to their site, and it's a bit confusing. It says it's an antenna, but it says it's an internet antenna, which means they could rebroadcast anything live that they have access to, for example getting WGN out of the natural airwave area. It doesn't look like they are doing that though since it's only offered in some cities at this point. It looks like, for the most part, they are providing an alternative antenna option.

I know however I've seen ads about a different one, a rabbit or something like that, where they claim to be rebroadcasting 1000s of tv and radio stations from around the world. I assumed Aereo was the same, I may be wrong. Evenso, it's exactly what cable and satellite providers DO pay for, and since one can get cable/satellite packages for just the local channels, I'd say the comparison to that level of rebroadcast is the same.

And again, I think neither cable, nor satellite, nor Aereo should be charged to rebroadcast television otherwise available over the normal airwaves.
 
Yes, and I agree, but cable/satellite providers pay a whole lot to effectively provide the same end result. Aereo isn't just an antenna, it's an antenna for their own retransmissions of channels, that's why there are so many channels available, not just the ones in your area. My tuner/antenna for the laptop only gets local channels, ie what you're talking about. Aereo is more, it is a true rebroadcaster essentially the same as cable/satellite. If my reading of it is accurate anyway.

Aereo only retransmits the local channels (theoretically) available to their subscribers over the air. They even claim to have an individual antenna for each subscriber to differentiate themselves from cable companies.
 
Last edited:
Aereo Internet service vs. TV broadcasters: US Supreme Court to decide

Aereo has got a case going before the Supreme Court, to rule on, whether they can rebroadcast Network TV, over the Internet, for a cheaper alternative service to the big providers.
Me thinks SCOTUS will rule in favor of broadcast, cable and satellite companies. I don't see any other way out of this, it's about how big and how much lobby influence they have, probably more than AEREO.

But, I already have my digital television antenna and don't really care what they do, I became tired of paying $80 a month for BS.
 
Some background:

"....Although cable television service providers routinely carried local affiliates of the major broadcast networks, independent stations and affiliates of minor networks were sometimes not carried, on the premise it would allow cable providers to instead carry non-local programming which they felt would attract more customers to their service.

Many cable operators were also equity owners in these cable channels, especially Tele-Communications, Inc., then the nation's largest multiple system operator (MSO), and had moved to replace local channels with equity-owned programming (at the time, TCI held a large stake in Discovery Communications). This pressure was especially strong on cable systems with limited bandwidth for channels.

The smaller local broadcasters argued that by hampering their access to this increasing segment of the local television audience, this posed a threat to the viability of free-to-view broadcast television, which they argued was a worthy public good.

Local broadcast stations also argued cable systems were attempting to serve as a "gatekeeper" in competing unfairly for advertising revenue. Some affiliates of major networks also feared that non-local affiliates might negotiate to provide television programming to local cable services to expand their advertising market, taking away this audience from local stations, with similar negative impact on free broadcast television.

Although cable providers argued that such regulation would impose an undue burden on their flexibility in selecting which services would be most appealing to their customers, the current "must-carry" rules were enacted by the United States Congress in 1992 (via the Cable Television Protection and Competition Act), and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rules in rejecting the arguments of the cable industry and programmers in the majority decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy. ....

A side effect of the must-carry rules is that broadcast networks cannot charge cable television providers license fees for the program content retransmitted on the cable network, except potentially as a part of retransmission consent agreements in lieu of must-carry.

...... Station operators are allowed to demand payment from cable operators, or negotiate private agreements for carriage, or threaten revocation against the cable operator (see Sinclair, Time Warner Cable). Must-carry is a privilege given to television stations, not a cable company. A cable company cannot use must-carry to demand the right to carry an over-the-air station against the station's wishes."...If a broadcaster elects retransmission consent, there is no obligation for the cable system to carry the signal.[2] This option allows broadcasters who own stations, including those affiliated with major networks such as CBS, NBC and ABC or Fox to request cash or other compensation from cable or satellite providers for signals. These networks have usually attempted to gain further distribution of cable services and/or co-owned low-power television stations in which they also hold an equity position rather than direct cash compensation, which cable systems have almost universally balked at paying....."
Must-carry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
BBC cannot be rebroadcast for free. You folks pay for your basic TV service, it's not free at all.

Within EU borders it can. Any tv or radio channel that is free to view in a member country can be rebroadcast to another without the permission of the tv or radio channel. Hence Filmon.com is fully legal.
 
To expand on what Shrubnose is saying, here's how the Aereo service generally works.

In the cities where Aereo's services operate they own a building that's filled with an extremely high volume of incredibly small HD antenna's that pull down the free television stations over the air signal.

Each of these antenna are then hooked up to a box that acts as a DVR and has a connection to the internet.

Customers within that geographical location can then pay Aereo for access to one of those antennas. At that point, the individual can use software on a computer, smartphone/tablet, or some TV companions (Roku for instance) to access the feed from their antenna.

Additionally, since the antennas are hooked up to a DVR, the Aereo service provides you with some basic DVR services depending on which package you go with them.

This is very similar to using a Sling Box within your own home. In that case, the Sling Box uses your own cable connection and DVR to push your television content onto the internet so you can stream it on other devices in other locations. What Aereo is doing is giving you that ability, but with all of the infrastructure (The antenna, the DVR, the internet connection) at a separate location.

EVERYTHING you can do with Aereo you could do at home without paying a dime to the cable companies. You could set up an antenna, you could set up a sling box, and you could set up a DVR and be able to do the same thing Aereo does. However, the upfront cost for you would be significantly more to do that and would require some level of technical know-how. Aereo’s service is attractive because it takes that hassle away and removes the upfront cost in exchange for a small monthly fee.

But Aereo itself isn’t widely broadcasting television content openly to anyone. They’re renting people antennas, and then allowing people to view the content from their specific antenna. Specifically, they’re renting antenna’s only to people who would be able to access that antenna’s stations from their own home.

For example, Aereo has their service running in New York City. I live in the DC area. Since I’m in DC as opposed to the NYC area, I’m not allowed to subscribe to their service in NYC. And since they don’t currently have their service in DC, I can’t use them at all. So they’re not providing people channels that they wouldn’t theoretically have access to, for free, in their own home.
 
Back
Top Bottom