So this is what I don't get.

The company (Aereo - aereo.com) dedicates a small antenna (and, I guess,
tuner) to you that you can access over the internet for a small monthly
charge. This lets you watch what-ever TV channel the antenna can pick
up.

Now what I don't know is:

- is there really a market for watching TV on a cell phone or tablet?

- are you matched (geographically) to an antenna in your locale, so
that you are only allowed to stream a TV transmission that would
be equivalent to what you could receive OTA where you physically
are at that moment?

But my biggest question is:

If people really do want to watch TV on their mobile devices, then why
on earth hasn't the makers of these devices (phones, tablets) responded
years ago by putting ATSC tuners in them SO YOU CAN WATCH LOCAL TV
DIRECTLY OTA WITHOUT USING ANY INTERNET / DATA BANDWITDH ?

Does anyone have an explanation as to why the cell phone and tablet
market isin't sufficiently competitive such that some maker would have
raised the bar by including an ATSC tuner in at least some versions of
their products?

How on earth can it make sense to stream live OTA tv to a portable
device when the device could have it's own friggen TV tuner built in?

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:29:12 -0400, Home Guy "Home"@Guy. com wrote:

So this is what I don't get.

That certainly figures with you Home Guy. You don't get much, if
anything, about America. The groups here know that.
__
_Description: Ex-adult actors claim they can't get ahead in workforce_

So this is what I don't get.

The company (Aereo - aereo.com) dedicates a small antenna (and, I guess,
tuner) to you that you can access over the internet for a small monthly
charge. This lets you watch what-ever TV channel the antenna can pick
up.

Now what I don't know is:

- is there really a market for watching TV on a cell phone or tablet?

- are you matched (geographically) to an antenna in your locale, so
that you are only allowed to stream a TV transmission that would
be equivalent to what you could receive OTA where you physically
are at that moment?

But my biggest question is:

If people really do want to watch TV on their mobile devices, then why
on earth hasn't the makers of these devices (phones, tablets) responded
years ago by putting ATSC tuners in them SO YOU CAN WATCH LOCAL TV
DIRECTLY OTA WITHOUT USING ANY INTERNET / DATA BANDWITDH ?

Does anyone have an explanation as to why the cell phone and tablet
market isin't sufficiently competitive such that some maker would have
raised the bar by including an ATSC tuner in at least some versions of
their products?

How on earth can it make sense to stream live OTA tv to a portable
device when the device could have it's own friggen TV tuner built in?

So this is what I and Oren don't get.

The company (Aereo - aereo.com) dedicates a small antenna (and, I guess,
tuner) to you that you can access over the internet for a small monthly
charge. This lets you watch what-ever TV channel the antenna can pick
up.

Now what I don't know is:

- is there really a market for watching TV on a cell phone or tablet?

- are you matched (geographically) to an antenna in your locale, so
that you are only allowed to stream a TV transmission that would
be equivalent to what you could receive OTA where you physically
are at that moment?

But my biggest question is:

If people really do want to watch TV on their mobile devices, then why
on earth hasn't the makers of these devices (phones, tablets) responded
years ago by putting ATSC tuners in them SO YOU CAN WATCH LOCAL TV
DIRECTLY OTA WITHOUT USING ANY INTERNET / DATA BANDWITDH ?

Does anyone have an explanation as to why the cell phone and tablet
market isin't sufficiently competitive such that some maker would have
raised the bar by including an ATSC tuner in at least some versions of
their products?

How on earth can it make sense to stream live OTA tv to a portable
device when the device could have it's own friggen TV tuner built in?

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:11:27 -0400, Home Guy "Home"@Guy. com wrote:

So this is what I don't get.

I told you in the last hour.

You sure don't get much.

Do your own research for the reasons.

And stop repeating yourself, like last hour.

Home Guy" "Home wrote:

The same thing over and over.

Those rabbit ears on the cell phone would poke someones eye out!

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 7:29:12 PM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
So this is what I don't get.



The company (Aereo - aereo.com) dedicates a small antenna (and, I guess,

tuner) to you that you can access over the internet for a small monthly

charge. This lets you watch what-ever TV channel the antenna can pick

up.



Now what I don't know is:



- is there really a market for watching TV on a cell phone or tablet?



It's not just a cell phone or tablet. You can stream it to any PC and also to devices that are connected directly to your TV. I guess the question is
how much and when the typical person would watch it. If people are
traveling, they might want to watch the local news. Or if some big story
breaks, I can see watching on a phone or tablet. But it wouldn't be
my main way of viewing, that's for sure. You'd also have to be on wifi,
or you'd run up mins real fast on the cell network.



- are you matched (geographically) to an antenna in your locale, so

that you are only allowed to stream a TV transmission that would

be equivalent to what you could receive OTA where you physically

are at that moment?


AFAIK, you can only watch stations in your local, home area, but you
can watch them from anywhere.






But my biggest question is:



If people really do want to watch TV on their mobile devices, then why

on earth hasn't the makers of these devices (phones, tablets) responded

years ago by putting ATSC tuners in them SO YOU CAN WATCH LOCAL TV

DIRECTLY OTA WITHOUT USING ANY INTERNET / DATA BANDWITDH ?



Seems like it would be a good idea.... for consumers. But for the
cell phone carriers, not so much. Instead of paying for data service
minutes to watch TV, you'd be watching it for free. That's probably
why you don't see it.



Does anyone have an explanation as to why the cell phone and tablet

market isin't sufficiently competitive such that some maker would have

raised the bar by including an ATSC tuner in at least some versions of

their products?


See the above.




How on earth can it make sense to stream live OTA tv to a portable

device when the device could have it's own friggen TV tuner built in?

See the above.


Now let's get to what I don't understand. The networks have their shorts
in a knot and brought this suit against Aero. What I don't get is what's
the big threat? The networks are putting this out over the air for free
and all you need is an antenna to receive it. They get paid for advertising
based on the number of viewers. The more viewers, the more $$$. I guess
what's threatened is that they are getting paid by cable companies who
carry their broadcasts. Which seems kind of funny too, no? With an
antenna you can get it for free, but to watch it on cable, you're paying
the fees that the network collects from the cable companies.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:34:34 -0400, Home Guy "Home"@Guy. com wrote:

So this is what I and Oren don't get.

You really are full of ****. I never said I agree with you. I simply
pointed out that you are a dumb ass for not knowing what this case
subject it about.

On 4/23/14 8:01 PM, trader_4 wrote:

Now let's get to what I don't understand. The networks have their shorts
in a knot and brought this suit against Aero. What I don't get is what's
the big threat? The networks are putting this out over the air for free
and all you need is an antenna to receive it. They get paid for advertising
based on the number of viewers. The more viewers, the more $$$. I guess
what's threatened is that they are getting paid by cable companies who
carry their broadcasts. Which seems kind of funny too, no? With an
antenna you can get it for free, but to watch it on cable, you're paying
the fees that the network collects from the cable companies.

Would it have anything to do with lack of Nielsen ratings over the
web? Or is there some way to measure viewers?

Home Guy:

Samsung and Nokia are simply responding to market demand. You can buy video cards for desktop computers that include TV tuners so that you can watch TV on your computer monitor, but those video cards don't sell well. For some reason, the 16 to 24 age group would much prefer to play video games and tweet on their desktop computers than watch TV.

The answer really lies in the fact that people are social animals. We prefer to be with other people given the option, whether it be to work or to play, we prefer the social interaction of "company". And, a computer that allows you to tweet with others and respond to tweets or to friend other people on facebook and respond to their facebook page is infinately more to our liking than the non-participatory one way conversation that happens on TV. There simply isn't a demand for TV on our computers because we're not as drawn to TV as we are to venues that allow social interaction like Twitter and Facebook.

PS:
This is definitely OT, but much of the reason why apes, dolphins and people have disproportionately larger brains than other members of the animal kingdom is that apes, dolphins and people have a social interaction with others of our own species. If you're an alligator lying in wait at a watering hole for a gazelle to come within striking range, you don't need a big brain. If that gazelle comes close enough for you to get your jaws around it, that's your meal and the thought of sharing it with other aligators doesn't even cross your mind. But, if you're not a big strong alligator, you may have to rely on the help of others to hunt down that gazelle. Some of you might chase the gazelle toward a narrow passage way where others of you may be lying in wait with a net or spears. In that case, the gazelle doesn't just go to the hunter that killed it, but to all who participated in capturing and killing it. And, it's that much more sophisticated social interaction associated with working together to hunt prey, and then sharing the fruits of the hunt with all of the other hunters that's required apes, dolphins and humans to develop a larger brain. So, social interaction is hard wired into our brains, and the one way conversation that TV can provide simply doesn't interest us as much as two or multiple way conversations with other people.

Dean, Hoffman, wrote:

Now let's get to what I don't understand. The networks have their
shorts in a knot and brought this suit against Aero. What I don't
get is what's the big threat? The networks are putting this out
over the air for free and all you need is an antenna to receive it.
They get paid for advertising based on the number of viewers.

Would it have anything to do with lack of Nielsen ratings over the
web? Or is there some way to measure viewers?

The networks put a lot of effort to keep the OTA stuff viewable only on
TV's, and the stuff that they stream on the internet (either directly or
via Hulu) to be visible on everything else (computers, tablets, phones,
etc).

If you look at set-top boxes like Google's "Google TV" - it first came
out in 2010 and was largely a market failure.

It failed because of one simple thing: The "User-Agent" string that it
used when it made contact with web sites made it identifiable to those
servers - and they refused to send it content.

In other words, when you use a traditional computer browser to go to a
site like cbs.com, the cbs server knows what computer you have, and what
browser you have (at the very least). So it sees that you're using a
regular computer and is happy to serve content to you.

But Google's TV box used a "User-Agent" string that, rightly or wrongly
allows the cbs (or any server) to know that you're using a specific
set-top box, and they don't want you watching their internet feed on
your TV through the box, so they simply don't serve you the content.

Now why google didn't just fake the user-agent string to make it appear
as, say, an android tablet, or even more tricky, a windows PC running
some mozilla browser - I don't know. Or why google worked so hard to
make it hard for users to hack the user-agent string on that box, I
don't know.

But bottom line is that the networks really really don't want you
watching OTA tv channels on portable devices, phones or computers
(laptop, desktop, etc) and they really really don't want you to be able
to watch their streaming web-content on a regular TV (through a set-top
box, "smart tv", or when connected to a media PC).

It probably would throw their survey ratings into question, throw a
wrench into their advertising rates for OTA and web, and maybe cause
headaches in terms of distribution rights.

In article , Home Guy "Home"@Guy. com
wrote:


It probably would throw their survey ratings into question, throw a
wrench into their advertising rates for OTA and web, and maybe cause
headaches in terms of distribution rights.

This may be the big one. I have a friend who worked on getting Miami
Vice ready for hime. Since this was a form of distribution not in the
original agreements, they had a whole bunch of problems getting the
rights for the songs used in the background. Because of all sorts of
convoluted publishing agreements, it took them something like 3 years
just to get the clearance for the rock music in the sound track.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 10:14:36 PM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 4/23/14 8:01 PM, trader_4 wrote:



Now let's get to what I don't understand. The networks have their shorts

in a knot and brought this suit against Aero. What I don't get is what's

the big threat? The networks are putting this out over the air for free

and all you need is an antenna to receive it. They get paid for advertising

based on the number of viewers. The more viewers, the more $$$. I guess

what's threatened is that they are getting paid by cable companies who

carry their broadcasts. Which seems kind of funny too, no? With an

antenna you can get it for free, but to watch it on cable, you're paying

the fees that the network collects from the cable companies.



Would it have anything to do with lack of Nielsen ratings over the

web? Or is there some way to measure viewers?

I don't see why they can't measure ratings for any media. Nilesen picks
out names just like would be done for any survey. They send you a survey
that asks you to keep track of what you watch for a week. No reason that
couldn't include what you watch via streaming. If it's done for TV, cable,
radio, etc, there isn't any reason they can't figure it out for streaming
video.

But you already have two ways of distribution being treated totally
different. If you receive via an antenna, it's free. If you receive
via cable, the cable company is paying a huge amount to the broadcaster
for the right to distribute what otherwise would be free and you in turn
are paying for it in your cable bill. I think that revenue stream is
what the broadcasters are trying to protect.

trader_4 wrote:

If you receive via cable, the cable company is paying a huge amount
to the broadcaster for the right to distribute what otherwise would
be free and you in turn are paying for it in your cable bill.

Isin't it true (or maybe it was in the past?) that cable-co's could take
any signal off the air and rebroadcast them across the local cable plant
without having to pay the networks or the station broadcasting the
signal - as long as they carried it exactly as it was broadcast - no
substitution of commercials?

It would have to be a signal that the cable-co would have to receive
with their own antenna and gear - no link or legwork done by the
transmitting station?

Wasn't the same done by satellite tv providers - in fact they were
mandated by law to broadcast local TV channels (not sure how that's done
when a satellite signal can be received by half the continent).

Kurt Ullman wrote:

This may be the big one. I have a friend who worked on getting Miami
Vice ready for hime. Since this was a form of distribution not in the
original agreements, they had a whole bunch of problems getting the
rights for the songs used in the background. Because of all sorts of
convoluted publishing agreements, it took them something like 3 years
just to get the clearance for the rock music in the sound track.

A highpoint of the TV series 'Tour of Duty' was the soundtrack, starting
with 'Paint it Black' over the opening credits. I didn't even put it on my
queue when I realized the DVD release had all the original music replaced
with elevator music. One of the extra material tracks on one DVD said it was
cheaper to record original compositions in the style of the era the movie is
set in than trying to secure rights.

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 9:11:29 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
trader_4 wrote:



If you receive via cable, the cable company is paying a huge amount

to the broadcaster for the right to distribute what otherwise would

be free and you in turn are paying for it in your cable bill.



Isin't it true (or maybe it was in the past?) that cable-co's could take

any signal off the air and rebroadcast them across the local cable plant

without having to pay the networks or the station broadcasting the

signal - as long as they carried it exactly as it was broadcast - no

substitution of commercials?



Apparently it was free in the past, but isn't free today:


"What is that Broadcast TV Surcharge on my statement?

The Broadcast TV Surcharge is a pass through reflecting charges assessed to Charter by the owners of local broadcast, or local "network-affiliated," TV stations. While broadcast stations distribute their signals over the air using free spectrum granted to them by the federal government, they charge Charter significant amounts to carry their TV signals. These signals were historically made available to Charter at no cost, or low cost. However, the prices now demanded by broadcast stations have necessitated that we pass these costs on to customers. "

The above is what the broadcasters in the suit before the SC are trying
to protect. But, how big of a deal it is, I'm not convinced. For example,
even if it's available to me, I'm not going to use it and give up cable.
There is a lot on cable I watch, the broadcast stuff is maybe 5% of it.
And if they looked at the positive side, ie that now people could be
watching their station *with the commercials* on a tablet, smartphone, etc,
it sure seems to me it's like getting more people to tune to their already free
OTA broadcasts. Isn't that what they want? More viewers so they can
charge higher advertising rates? It seems to me they want to try to hijack
and make anything on the internet pay, versus viewing it as an extension
of their already free service.



It would have to be a signal that the cable-co would have to receive

with their own antenna and gear - no link or legwork done by the

transmitting station?



That's how they apparently receive it here. Cablevision has a huge
tower at their site, with a bunch of what look like regular TV antennas,
aimed at NYC.



Wasn't the same done by satellite tv providers - in fact they were

mandated by law to broadcast local TV channels (not sure how that's done

when a satellite signal can be received by half the continent).

IDK what they were mandated to do, what was free, etc. But they
only allow you access to the locals in your own area, AFAIK.

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:31:04 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
Home Guy:



Samsung and Nokia are simply responding to market demand.

Maybe I missed something here, but what are Samsung and Nokia doing
to respond to market demand? If anything, they aren't responding, because
HG has a valid point, they could put an ATSC tuner into a smartphone
so that you could watch broadcast TV directly.



You can buy

video cards for desktop computers that include TV tuners so that you can

watch TV on your computer monitor, but those video cards don't sell

well. For some reason, the 16 to 24 age group would much prefer to play

video games and tweet on their desktop computers than watch TV.



Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

trader_4 wrote:

Samsung and Nokia are simply responding to market demand.

Maybe I missed something here, but what are Samsung and Nokia doing
to respond to market demand? If anything, they aren't responding,
because HG has a valid point, they could put an ATSC tuner into a
smartphone so that you could watch broadcast TV directly.

Not just Nokia or Samsung.

Apple doesn't do it either in their iPhone.

And even Blackberry, on the brink of going out of business as a cell
phone maker, didn't reach for what could have been a huge gimick to
raise their sales by giving their phones the ability to receive TV
signals.

I heard recently that a software upgrade could give some new and older
Blackberry phones the ability to turn on an FM radio receiver that the
phones apparently already have - but nobody knew?

There is something wierd going on in the portable device market space,
especially cell phones, where the makers of these devices consistently
fail to give these devices the capability to experience and take
advantage of existing free radio signals and broadcasts of various
sorts.

Yes, cell phones can receive and make use of wifi, but I get the
impression that even that was grudgingly given.

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:16:06 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
trader_4 wrote:



Samsung and Nokia are simply responding to market demand.



Maybe I missed something here, but what are Samsung and Nokia doing

to respond to market demand? If anything, they aren't responding,

because HG has a valid point, they could put an ATSC tuner into a

smartphone so that you could watch broadcast TV directly.



Not just Nokia or Samsung.



Apple doesn't do it either in their iPhone.



And even Blackberry, on the brink of going out of business as a cell

phone maker, didn't reach for what could have been a huge gimick to

raise their sales by giving their phones the ability to receive TV

signals.



I heard recently that a software upgrade could give some new and older

Blackberry phones the ability to turn on an FM radio receiver that the

phones apparently already have - but nobody knew?



There is something wierd going on in the portable device market space,

especially cell phones, where the makers of these devices consistently

fail to give these devices the capability to experience and take

advantage of existing free radio signals and broadcasts of various

sorts.



I previously stated what that reason very likely would be. The
cell phone manufacturer's customers are the cell phone carriers. If
you can watch TV on the cell phone directly instead of watching it or even
something else on their data network, you don't use airtime minutes.
Airtime minutes is what keeps them in business.



Yes, cell phones can receive and make use of wifi, but I get the

impression that even that was grudgingly given.

Not really. AFAIK, the carriers didn't get knots in their shorts
over it. But they still won't let you use wifi on a phone on their
network, unless you have a data plan. But, you raise a good point.
If they are so fearful of watching TV directly and that is why the
phone manufacturers aren't putting it in, why did they allow wifi
to go in?

On 4/23/2014 6:29 PM, Home Guy wrote:

- is there really a market for watching TV on a cell phone or tablet?

There apparently is, because this company has sold out all of its
available antennas in some markets.
The only time I'd be interested would be when I'm sitting in the
basement with the power out during a storm, and I wanted to keep
abreast of the tv broadcast weather reporting.

But my biggest question is:

If people really do want to watch TV on their mobile devices, then why
on earth hasn't the makers of these devices (phones, tablets) responded
years ago by putting ATSC tuners in them SO YOU CAN WATCH LOCAL TV
DIRECTLY OTA WITHOUT USING ANY INTERNET / DATA BANDWITDH ?

It's more than the tuner. You also need a decent antenna - and you're
not going to be able to fit one inside a mobile device.

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:53:37 AM UTC-4, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
On 4/23/2014 6:29 PM, Home Guy wrote:



- is there really a market for watching TV on a cell phone or tablet?



There apparently is, because this company has sold out all of its

available antennas in some markets.

The only time I'd be interested would be when I'm sitting in the

basement with the power out during a storm, and I wanted to keep

abreast of the tv broadcast weather reporting.



But my biggest question is:



If people really do want to watch TV on their mobile devices, then why

on earth hasn't the makers of these devices (phones, tablets) responded

years ago by putting ATSC tuners in them SO YOU CAN WATCH LOCAL TV

DIRECTLY OTA WITHOUT USING ANY INTERNET / DATA BANDWITDH ?



It's more than the tuner. You also need a decent antenna - and you're

not going to be able to fit one inside a mobile device.

Good point, perhaps you've hit on the reason. The Aero TV company
uses a postage stamp size antenna, but presumably they are locating
their facilities very close to the Xmitter.

Really OTA is obsolete, its used by about 8% of the population many of which have cable or sat. at the time of digital conversion OTA should of been killed.

TV bandwidth is more useful for cell phones

Cable and sat would be happy to pick up more subscribers, at say 10 bucks a pop for lifeline service.

Ending OTA would save a lot of electricity...

tv stations could resell their bandwidth for cell.

In article , Home Guy "Home"@Guy. com
wrote:

trader_4 wrote:

If you receive via cable, the cable company is paying a huge amount
to the broadcaster for the right to distribute what otherwise would
be free and you in turn are paying for it in your cable bill.

Isin't it true (or maybe it was in the past?) that cable-co's could take
any signal off the air and rebroadcast them across the local cable plant
without having to pay the networks or the station broadcasting the
signal - as long as they carried it exactly as it was broadcast - no
substitution of commercials?


Used to be that cable systems were subjected to Must Carry Laws meaning
just that because the locals were concerned about being shut out. Then
CATV got to be big biz and TV stations decided they wanted a cut and got
the Congress to change the law.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

Kurt Ullman wrote:

This may be the big one. I have a friend who worked on getting Miami
Vice ready for hime. Since this was a form of distribution not in the
original agreements, they had a whole bunch of problems getting the
rights for the songs used in the background. Because of all sorts of
convoluted publishing agreements, it took them something like 3 years
just to get the clearance for the rock music in the sound track.


If only they'd done the same for WKRP instead of replacing all the rock
music with public-domain crap.

In article ,
(Scott Lurndal) wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

This may be the big one. I have a friend who worked on getting Miami
Vice ready for hime. Since this was a form of distribution not in the
original agreements, they had a whole bunch of problems getting the
rights for the songs used in the background. Because of all sorts of
convoluted publishing agreements, it took them something like 3 years
just to get the clearance for the rock music in the sound track.


If only they'd done the same for WKRP instead of replacing all the rock
music with public-domain crap.

With MV, the show was often built around the music and it was like
another character. With WKPR the music was just something going in the
background to let you know it was a radio station. Of course that don't
make it right (grin).
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

On 4/24/2014 10:53 AM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
On 4/23/2014 6:29 PM, Home Guy wrote:

- is there really a market for watching TV on a cell phone or tablet?
Plus, th
available antennas in some markets.
The only time I'd be interested would be when I'm sitting in the
basement with the power out during a storm, and I wanted to keep abreast
of the tv broadcast weather reporting.

But my biggest question is:

If people really do want to watch TV on their mobile devices, then why
on earth hasn't the makers of these devices (phones, tablets) responded
years ago by putting ATSC tuners in them SO YOU CAN WATCH LOCAL TV
DIRECTLY OTA WITHOUT USING ANY INTERNET / DATA BANDWITDH ?

It's more than the tuner. You also need a decent antenna - and you're
not going to be able to fit one inside a mobile device.

A number of years ago, I bought one of those walkman types of portable
TVs. Granted, I'd bought it "open box" which may have been a problem,
but I rarely got any decent reception on it, despite living close to the
local networks' combined candelabra tower. And it had a telescoping
antenna that was, I don't know, 8-10" long; I'm not sure that would be
too popular on a phone, although may on a table it wouldn't be too big.
(Actually, I wish I could buy one of those walkman tvs now. It would
come in handy during power outages when I wouldn't have wifi anyhow).

Aereo appears to be an interesting idea, but it only has the same
channels I can get anyhow (still close to that candelabra). If it
carried a few more channels like TNT, I'd be more interested.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 17:28:33 -0400, Lee B
wrote:

Aereo appears to be an interesting idea, but it only has the same
channels I can get anyhow (still close to that candelabra). If it
carried a few more channels like TNT, I'd be more interested.

I'm just guessing here. Aereo will be stopped by SCOTUS. There was two
hours of oral arguments in the hearing.

Ruling will be around June. I'd not bet on Aereo.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

This may be the big one. I have a friend who worked on getting Miami
Vice ready for hime. Since this was a form of distribution not in the
original agreements, they had a whole bunch of problems getting the
rights for the songs used in the background. Because of all sorts of
convoluted publishing agreements, it took them something like 3 years
just to get the clearance for the rock music in the sound track.

The most egregious example of that I can think of is the "The Rebel" which
when broadcast in primetime had the very catchy theme song sung by Johnny
Cash. In syndication that song's nowhere to be heard.

http://www.last.fm/music/Johnny+Cash...+-+Johnny+Yuma

Using popular music has gotten a lot easier for TV producers (almost every
dramatic show seems to have a pop music montage ending these days) but it
still costs a pretty penny for nationally broadcast shows. I listen to the
commentary on DVDs and the directors are always lamenting how much a tiny
snippet of even a fairly out-of-date popular song costs.

--
Bobby G.

On 04/24/14 05:28 pm, Lee B wrote:

- is there really a market for watching TV on a cell phone or tablet?
Plus, th
available antennas in some markets.
The only time I'd be interested would be when I'm sitting in the
basement with the power out during a storm, and I wanted to keep abreast
of the tv broadcast weather reporting.

But my biggest question is:

If people really do want to watch TV on their mobile devices, then why
on earth hasn't the makers of these devices (phones, tablets) responded
years ago by putting ATSC tuners in them SO YOU CAN WATCH LOCAL TV
DIRECTLY OTA WITHOUT USING ANY INTERNET / DATA BANDWITDH ?

It's more than the tuner. You also need a decent antenna - and you're
not going to be able to fit one inside a mobile device.

A number of years ago, I bought one of those walkman types of portable
TVs. Granted, I'd bought it "open box" which may have been a problem,
but I rarely got any decent reception on it, despite living close to the
local networks' combined candelabra tower. And it had a telescoping
antenna that was, I don't know, 8-10" long; I'm not sure that would be
too popular on a phone, although may on a table it wouldn't be too big.
(Actually, I wish I could buy one of those walkman tvs now. It would
come in handy during power outages when I wouldn't have wifi anyhow).

Aereo appears to be an interesting idea, but it only has the same
channels I can get anyhow (still close to that candelabra). If it
carried a few more channels like TNT, I'd be more interested.

TNT isn't an OTA channel, and I think it's only OTA broadcasts that
Aereo is relaying.

I doubt very much whether there is anything to stop you sending signals
from your antenna to a bunch of neighbors by coaxial cable (transmitting
would require a license for a frequency allocated to you), but the
problem seems to be that Aereo is charging for the service, and CBS,
NBC, etc., aren't getting a cut, as they do from the satellite and cable
companies.

Perce

On 4/24/2014 6:08 PM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 04/24/14 05:28 pm, Lee B wrote:

- is there really a market for watching TV on a cell phone or tablet?
Plus, th
available antennas in some markets.
The only time I'd be interested would be when I'm sitting in the
basement with the power out during a storm, and I wanted to keep abreast
of the tv broadcast weather reporting.

But my biggest question is:

If people really do want to watch TV on their mobile devices, then why
on earth hasn't the makers of these devices (phones, tablets) responded
years ago by putting ATSC tuners in them SO YOU CAN WATCH LOCAL TV
DIRECTLY OTA WITHOUT USING ANY INTERNET / DATA BANDWITDH ?

It's more than the tuner. You also need a decent antenna - and you're
not going to be able to fit one inside a mobile device.

A number of years ago, I bought one of those walkman types of portable
TVs. Granted, I'd bought it "open box" which may have been a problem,
but I rarely got any decent reception on it, despite living close to the
local networks' combined candelabra tower. And it had a telescoping
antenna that was, I don't know, 8-10" long; I'm not sure that would be
too popular on a phone, although may on a table it wouldn't be too big.
(Actually, I wish I could buy one of those walkman tvs now. It would
come in handy during power outages when I wouldn't have wifi anyhow).

Aereo appears to be an interesting idea, but it only has the same
channels I can get anyhow (still close to that candelabra). If it
carried a few more channels like TNT, I'd be more interested.

TNT isn't an OTA channel, and I think it's only OTA broadcasts that
Aereo is relaying.

I doubt very much whether there is anything to stop you sending signals
from your antenna to a bunch of neighbors by coaxial cable (transmitting
would require a license for a frequency allocated to you), but the
problem seems to be that Aereo is charging for the service, and CBS,
NBC, etc., aren't getting a cut, as they do from the satellite and cable
companies.

Perce

Sorry, I should have clarified. I realize that TNT is not OTA. There are
a few non-OTA networks that I watch, TNT being one, and if I could
figure how to get those "missing" channels, I'd be more willing to get
rid of my cable and live with an OTA dvr or a service like Aereo which
has a dvr of sorts. Truthfully, I'd be happy if I could just watch those
few cable stations online for a small fee, but for now they only allow
online viewing if you can prove you subscribe to a participating
cable/sat company. Or maybe I'll just learn to live without them! In
any case it will be interesting to see how this case turns out, and if
Aereo wins, see if similar companies pop up.

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
news:ljc20h$983$1@dont-

stuff snipped

I doubt very much whether there is anything to stop you sending signals
from your antenna to a bunch of neighbors by coaxial cable (transmitting
would require a license for a frequency allocated to you), but the
problem seems to be that Aereo is charging for the service, and CBS,
NBC, etc., aren't getting a cut, as they do from the satellite and cable
companies.

I find their position a little disingenuous because they are supported by
the ads interspersed with their broadcast content so they could actually
claim *more* users and raise their ad rates. Not sure if Aereo's DVR has a
commercial skip button (one of God's greatest gifts to mankind, IMHO) - that
might get their panties in a bunch. I am trusting the Supremes to royally
screw up this decision in the same way they've screwed up so many other
decision. Throughout the years, both left and right leaning courts have
shown remarkable ignorance when it comes to deciding technical issues. I've
watched them testify in Congress about the court's technical needs and so
far, only Justice Thomas seem to understand the basics of computers.

Justice Steven's new book really takes CJ Robert's to the woodshed:

Last month's decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission struck
down aggregate contribution limits, allowing rich people to make donations
to an unlimited number of federal candidates.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. started his controlling opinion with a
characteristically crisp and stirring opening sentence: "There is no right
more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our
political leaders."

But that was misleading, Justice Stevens said. "The first sentence here," he
said, "is not really about what the case is about."

The plaintiff, Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, had made
contributions to 15 candidates in the 2012 election. He sued so he could
give money to 12 more. None of the candidates in the second group was
running in Alabama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/us...direction.html

http://tinyurl.com/m8tpdfz

Ah, Alabama, leading the country backwards as fast as shi+ through a
canebrake. )-:

I think Stevens hit the nail squarely on the head in describing how national
"interest" (more like "pressure") groups are distorting American politics by
trying to influence so many local elections with outside money. I've
confident that just as the many decisions of the ultra-liberal Warren court
got neutered over the years, so shall it be with the decisions of the
ultra-conservative Robert's court in years to come.

Or, as my friend put so succinctly "If Roberts is right and corporations are
basically the same as people with free speech and freedom of religion
rights, why hasn't Governor Perry executed one yet?"

--

Bobby G.

"nestork" wrote in message

stuff snipped

This is definitely OT, but much of the reason why apes, dolphins and
people have disproportionately larger brains than other members of the
animal kingdom is that apes, dolphins and people have a social
interaction with others of our own species. If you're an alligator
lying in wait at a watering hole for a gazelle to come within striking
range, you don't need a big brain. If that gazelle comes close enough
for you to get your jaws around it, that's your meal and the thought of
sharing it with other aligators doesn't even cross your mind. But, if
you're not a big strong alligator, you may have to rely on the help of
others to hunt down that gazelle. Some of you might chase the gazelle
toward a narrow passage way where others of you may be lying in wait
with a net or spears. In that case, the gazelle doesn't just go to the
hunter that killed it, but to all who participated in capturing and
killing it. And, it's that much more sophisticated social interaction
associated with working together to hunt prey, and then sharing the
fruits of the hunt with all of the other hunters that's required apes,
dolphins and humans to develop a larger brain. So, social interaction
is hard wired into our brains, and the one way conversation that TV can
provide simply doesn't interest us as much as two or multiple way
conversations with other people.

Sounds like you watched the same PBS special last night that I did. Pretty
amazing stuff!

--
Bobby G.

trader_4 wrote:

I previously stated what that reason very likely would be. The
cell phone manufacturer's customers are the cell phone carriers.

Plenty of phones are bought directly by end-users.

And since when do the carriers dictate to the phone makers what features
they can build into a phone?

The major phone makers are big enough to not have to take that sort of
**** from the carriers.

Moe DeLoughan wrote:

why on earth hasn't the makers of these devices (phones, tablets)
responded years ago by putting ATSC tuners in them SO YOU CAN
WATCH LOCAL TV DIRECTLY OTA WITHOUT USING ANY INTERNET / DATA
BANDWITDH ?

It's more than the tuner. You also need a decent antenna -
and you're not going to be able to fit one inside a mobile
device.

Total hogwash.

For one thing, the 700 mhz band was once used by UHF channels 53 through
69. All TV stations in north america that were using those channels got
kicked off them. The 700 mhz band has many excellent reception
qualities for small devices with limited antenna space. It doesn't get
that much worse for lower-freqency channels (like 20 through 52).

The VHF channels would be more problematic, but many TV stations have
abandoned them in favor of UHF.

Combine that with the fact that your average TV transmitting is pumping
out 10's of kwatt (at minimum) to several hundred thousand watts of RF
power, and digital signals mean you either get a solid picture - or you
don't, means that your argument has just been cut to horse ****.

Finally, there ARE cell phones in asia with built-in ATSC tuners.

There are many more different types of consumer electronics products in
asia that are not seen in the US market, like digital versions of the
good-old VCR (not talking about cable boxes with hard drives either).

While unnecessarily full-quoting, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

I doubt very much whether there is anything to stop you sending
signals from your antenna to a bunch of neighbors by coaxial cable
(transmitting would require a license for a frequency allocated
to you), but the problem seems to be that Aereo is charging for
the service, and CBS, NBC, etc., aren't getting a cut, as they
do from the satellite and cable companies.

If instead of selling you a TV antenna and installing it for, oh, say
$250, what if I rented it to you for $5 a month?

What if I included a box that was a tuner and digital VCR combination
that let you record stuff on a schedule for you to watch later? All you
do is connect your TV via hdmi and use it like a monitor.

You cancel the service, I take back the box and antenna.

How would that be any different, from a content rights point of view,
than what Aereo is doing?

Can the internet connection that Aereo is using be considered as having
"common carrier" status, and hence can't be discriminated against in
terms of being a private communications channel?

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"
I find their position a little disingenuous because they are supported by
the ads interspersed with their broadcast content so they could actually
claim *more* users and raise their ad rates.
Not really. These are people in their coverage area so they are most
likely already counted and just move (essentially) from one method of
delivery to another. The TV people only break even. Now the Cable guys
(initially anyway) had such an argument because they would often pick up
the signal in an area that was either not well covered or where the
signal was spotty (thus cable originally being Community ANTENNA
Television or CATV).
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

"Home Guy" "Home"@Guy. com wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

There are many more different types of consumer electronics products in
asia that are not seen in the US market, like digital versions of the
good-old VCR (not talking about cable boxes with hard drives either).

You can get them here if you know where to look:

http://www.mediasonic.ca/product.php?id=1365123671

$40 for an ATSC HD personal video recorder at Amazon. Just add a USB stick
or external HD. Just bought one for every TV in the house. Has four kinds
of outputs (RF, HDMI, composite, component) to accommodate virtually any TV
ever made.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I2ZBD1U/

Personally I think they haven't put TV's in phones because not many people
are crazed enough about TV to want to suffer through looking at it on a 4"
screen with a 1/2" speaker. There are some, obviously, but I suspect many
more people find built in GPS navigation for more useful in a phone.

--
Bobby G.

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:03:56 PM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
trader_4 wrote:



I previously stated what that reason very likely would be. The

cell phone manufacturer's customers are the cell phone carriers.



Plenty of phones are bought directly by end-users.


Define plenty. By far the largest customers of the cell phone
manufacturers are the carriers. Most consumers get their phones
from a carrier or a channel that sells a particular carrier's
cell phones.



And since when do the carriers dictate to the phone makers what features

they can build into a phone?



Good grief. Since the beginning of time sellers have listened to
what their major customers want or don't want in products.




The major phone makers are big enough to not have to take that sort of

**** from the carriers.

Take what S***? The only one clammering for a TV in their phone
is apparently you. Before introducing new products, manufacturer's
routinely give major customers previews of what they are thinking of
in terms of features for new products, to solicite feedback. Say
LG told their top 10 customers that they were thinking of putting a
TV into the phone and most of them had strong objections, why in the
world would LG then do it? And the relationship between carriers
and cell phone companies is probably one of the strongest out there.
They have to be in sync with new technology rollouts. It wouldn't
work very well if the cell phone companies just made up a phone for
next year with 7R technology and found out that the carriers couldn't
and wouldn't support it. So of course they are heavily dependent on
each other.

Robert Green wrote:

There are many more different types of consumer electronics
products in asia that are not seen in the US market, like
digital versions of the good-old VCR (not talking about
cable boxes with hard drives either).

You can get them here if you know where to look:

http://www.mediasonic.ca/product.php?id=1365123671

$40 for an ATSC HD personal video recorder at Amazon.
Just add a USB stick or external HD.

Show me something like that, but with an internal SATA hard drive
(either built-in or optional).

Personally I think they haven't put TV's in phones because not
many people are crazed enough about TV to want to suffer through
looking at it on a 4" screen with a 1/2" speaker.

The big draw is, I would think, people watching sports - any games that
are still broadcast OTA these days.

trader_4 wrote:

Plenty of phones are bought directly by end-users.

Define plenty.

-----------
Apple Wants to Sell More iPhones Through Its Own Stores — But Can It?
July 17, 2013

Apple sells a lot of iPhones through its retail stores — but not nearly
as many as it would like. Indeed, at a recent gathering of Apple Store
leaders, sources said CEO Tim Cook was dismayed that only 20 percent of
all iPhones are sold through Apple Stores, and that he’d like to see
that number rise in the months ahead.

The biggest and most obvious constraint on such an effort is the size of
Apple’s retail operations. In the U.S., for example, Apple has about 250
retail locations — most, if not all, very well-trafficked. But its
carrier partners together have about 9,000, according to CIRP. Add to
that 1,000 or so Best Buy stores, and a bunch of other retail outlets
like RadioShack, and Apple’s plan to claim iPhone sa

http://allthingsd.com/20130717/apple...es-but-can-it/
------------

I'm assuing that when you buy a phone at an istore, you are 100% buying
the phone in a single transaction, vs when you "obtain" a phone through
a cellular provider you are paying for it $20 a month for 2 years as
part of your cellular service.

I know that one factor is cost - and many people simply can't afford to
pay $500 in one shot up front for a phone. Strange that the article
doesn't mention that.

By far the largest customers of the cell phone manufacturers are
the carriers. Most consumers get their phones from a carrier or
a channel that sells a particular carrier's cell phones.

I'm not expecting that a tv tuner would go into ALL phones made by any
given manufacturer.

I'm wondering why a few models or even just one model wouldn't have a
built-in tuner as an advanced feature, meant to give a marketing
advantage for those people that do purchase their phones outright before
signing up for a plan.