TV Upstart Aereo Offers Free Option 1 Hour of TV a Day for Free As Aereo continues to battle the broadcast industry, the company is shaking up their pricing to try and lure more users toward the service, which streams over the air broadcast networks via the Internet. Previously, the company's only price option was $12 a month for their channel lineup and forty hours worth of DVR space. Now, Aereo's plans come in a variety of new flavors, including a $1 day pass, an $8 20 hour DVR option, and most interestingly, a new free tier. As explained over at the Aereo blog, the new free option allows users to sign up and try the service for one hour a day, with no DVR option. You'll of course also pay overages if your ISP supports them (caps and overages were designed specifically by cable executives to rein in products just like this one). So far Aereo remains only available in New York City, but the company promises to expand significantly soon -- provided they can keep broadcast lawyers at bay. The full pricing:

So far Aereo remains only available in New York City, but the company promises to expand significantly soon -- provided they can keep broadcast lawyers at bay. The full pricing:







News Jump Stark New Reality In The Telco Business: Dumb Pipes No Longer Cut It; AT&T Unveils Mix and Match Plans; + more news AT&T Extends Overage Charge Waiver; Verizon And T-Mobile Each Insist Their 5G Strategy Is The Right One; + more news War Of Words Heats Up: T-Mobile Fires Back At Verizon, AT&T; Amazon Intros Gaming Service To Take On Stadia; + more news Starlink's Network Faces Huge Limitations; AT&T Whines T-Mobile Merger Put Too Much Spectrum In One Place; + more news WISPs Get CBRS Range As Great As Six Miles At 100 Mbps Speeds; Windstream Officially Exits Bankruptcy; + more news Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed view:

topics flat nest

jap

Premium Member

join:2003-08-10

038xx jap Premium Member still 100% Apple dependent. Bad emergence sequencing to not have Android and MSWindows support yet. TV viewing habits aren't easy to change and early adopter enthusiasm is a powerful behavior change agent for the rest of us. All this wonderful MsM/legal buzz and only Apple users can even test the service. Aereo's legal battle needs to appear like a hindrance to consumer demand and yet they're disallowing most consumers from becoming their voice of demand. I think that's a major strategic blunder.

JasonOD

@comcast.net JasonOD Anon Re: still 100% Apple dependent. said by jap: .....All this wonderful MsM/legal buzz and only Apple users can even test the service. Aereo's legal battle needs to appear like a hindrance to consumer demand and yet they're disallowing most consumers from becoming their voice of demand. I think that's a major strategic blunder.

Why is it a strategic blunder? Longtime broadcast foe Diller knows he's on very thin ice legally. Any gung-ho platform investment isn't worth the risk. Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01

Duluth, MN ·Charter

Ubee E31U2V1

(Software) pfSense

Netgear WNR3500L

Chubbysumo Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. said by JasonOD : said by jap: .....All this wonderful MsM/legal buzz and only Apple users can even test the service. Aereo's legal battle needs to appear like a hindrance to consumer demand and yet they're disallowing most consumers from becoming their voice of demand. I think that's a major strategic blunder.



Why is it a strategic blunder? Longtime broadcast foe Diller knows he's on very thin ice legally. Any gung-ho platform investment isn't worth the risk. hes not on "thin ice" at all. all you are doing is renting a remote antenna in a so called "ideal" location, and then having a TiVO and slingbox attached to it. whats so illegal about that? This would be like me using my neighbors roof for an antenna, running the cable back to my house, and then paying him a "maintenence" fee. Diller knows hes got a legit service, that is totally legal as long as each person has their "own" antenna, and DVR HDD space(since network DVRs are legal, all they need is their own HDD space). 88615298 (banned)

join:2004-07-28

West Tenness 88615298 (banned) Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. So if he gets 1 million people in NY to sign up he's going to have 1 million antennas? TheGhost

Premium Member

join:2003-01-03

Lake Forest, IL TheGhost Premium Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. said by 88615298: So if he gets 1 million people in NY to sign up he's going to have 1 million antennas?

Correct, or at least in theory. Each antenna is around the size of a dime. Rekrul

join:2007-04-21

Milford, CT Rekrul Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. said by TheGhost: said by 88615298: So if he gets 1 million people in NY to sign up he's going to have 1 million antennas?

Correct, or at least in theory. Each antenna is around the size of a dime.



Think of the kind of services that we could have if it wasn't for a sea of red tape drowning them. It's ridiculous the amount of hoops that new companies have to jump through today, just to avoid all the legal pitfalls that are holding back innovation.Think of the kind of services that we could have if it wasn't for a sea of red tape drowning them. MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

join:2007-08-15

Austin, TX MyDogHsFleas Premium Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. If by "red tape" you mean "laws designed to stop people from taking copyrighted content and reselling it without paying the content provider", then yes.

morbo

Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22

00000 morbo Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. said by MyDogHsFleas: If by "red tape" you mean "laws designed to stop people from taking copyrighted content and reselling it without paying the content provider", then yes.

There are all free, publicly available shows. They aren't re-broadcasting cable networks. This is legal. We just need a court case to settle the uncertainty and a la carte will begin. MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

join:2007-08-15

Austin, TX MyDogHsFleas Premium Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. said by morbo: There are all free, publicly available shows. They aren't re-broadcasting cable networks. This is legal. We just need a court case to settle the uncertainty and a la carte will begin.





Clue: When every show has a copyright notice and the words "all rights reserved" and the disclaimer "any rebroadcast, retransmission, or other use..." you know the rest.... IT AIN'T FREE AND PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. For Chrissake. This is like trying to have a discussion with 6th graders about calculus. If you have no clue please just shut your mouth.Clue: When every show has a copyright notice and the words "all rights reserved" and the disclaimer "any rebroadcast, retransmission, or other use..." you know the rest.... IT AIN'T FREE AND PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. Rekrul

join:2007-04-21

Milford, CT Rekrul to MyDogHsFleas

Member to MyDogHsFleas

said by MyDogHsFleas: If by "red tape" you mean "laws designed to stop people from taking copyrighted content and reselling it without paying the content provider", then yes.



Why don't TV networks digitize their entire library and put it online for a small fee? Because they couldn't even if they wanted to. Just trying to figure out all the licenses required, let alone actually paying for them, would bankrupt the network. So instead the shows sit in the vault rotting away until they're eventually lost forever. Because of copyright.



This may be hard for you to believe, but copyright wasn't invented to line the corporations' pockets. It was a limited right granted to authors as a form of encouragement, before their works inevitably passed into the public domain. It was never meant to last forever, like it does today. It was never meant as a tool for companies to lock up culture. And it was never meant as a way for creators to have absolute, unlimited control over what happens to their works.



If someone wanted to read a novel out loud to a group, they didn't need the author's permission. If they wanted to create illustrations based on a story, they didn't need the author's permission.



Somewhere along the line, the copyright train jumped the tracks and spewed its garbage over everything in sight. Suddenly you need a license to make copies, a license to show it in public, a license to sell it, a license to create new works based on it. Hell, you probably need a license to wipe your ass with it.



Copyright was supposed to encourage art, not lock it down and punish anyone who tries to make use of it. No, I mean the royal mess that is copyright law.Why don't TV networks digitize their entire library and put it online for a small fee? Because they couldn't even if they wanted to. Just trying to figure out all the licenses required, let alone actually paying for them, would bankrupt the network. So instead the shows sit in the vault rotting away until they're eventually lost forever. Because of copyright.This may be hard for you to believe, but copyright wasn't invented to line the corporations' pockets. It was a limited right granted to authors as a form of encouragement, before their works inevitably passed into the public domain. It was never meant to last forever, like it does today. It was never meant as a tool for companies to lock up culture. And it was never meant as a way for creators to have absolute, unlimited control over what happens to their works.If someone wanted to read a novel out loud to a group, they didn't need the author's permission. If they wanted to create illustrations based on a story, they didn't need the author's permission.Somewhere along the line, the copyright train jumped the tracks and spewed its garbage over everything in sight. Suddenly you need a license to make copies, a license to show it in public, a license to sell it, a license to create new works based on it. Hell, you probably need a license to wipe your ass with it.Copyright was supposed to encourage art, not lock it down and punish anyone who tries to make use of it. MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

join:2007-08-15

Austin, TX MyDogHsFleas Premium Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. Your narrative is not fact-based I believe. (that is my new nice way of saying "you're making shit up", so people don't go whining to the mods so much about me.) Please show where things changed, where it used to be that it was OK to make copies, to publicly perform or exhibit a work, or to create derivative works based on it. AFAIK that was always the point of the copyright law, to give the author control over and compensation for these things. Rekrul

join:2007-04-21

Milford, CT Rekrul Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. said by MyDogHsFleas: Your narrative is not fact-based I believe. (that is my new nice way of saying "you're making shit up", so people don't go whining to the mods so much about me.) Please show where things changed, where it used to be that it was OK to make copies, to publicly perform or exhibit a work, or to create derivative works based on it.



It was envisioned as a way to encourage authors by giving them a limited time to profit from their works. The idea being that once the copyrights expired they would need to create something new in order to keep earning a living, since they could no longer rely on profits from their previous works, which had become public domain and could be sold or even given away by anyone.



Assigning someone a copyright for their entire life, plus another 50-70 years, is in no way "limited" for them. said by MyDogHsFleas: AFAIK that was always the point of the copyright law, to give the author control over and compensation for these things. publish their works, so that for a limited time, only the author could profit from it.



Copyrights were never intended to allow authors to control every single aspect of how their works are used.



But since you seem to think that they do, and since everything in today's world is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's created (unlike when copyrights were first created), as the author of this post, I decree that you can only reply to this message if you first strip naked, pour maple syrup all over your body and then roll in feathers. Note that proof of compliance will be necessary. Copyright was originally intended to cover publishing, which originally meant just books. There was no 18th century version of ASCAP going around fining people for performing works without a license.It was envisioned as a way to encourage authors by giving them atime to profit from their works. The idea being that once the copyrights expired they would need to create something new in order to keep earning a living, since they could no longer rely on profits from their previous works, which had become public domain and could be sold or even given away by anyone.Assigning someone a copyright for their entire life, plus another 50-70 years, is in no way "limited" for them.It was a way to give the author control over who couldtheir works, so that for a limited time, only the author could profit from it.Copyrights were never intended to allow authors to control every single aspect of how their works are used.But since you seem to think that they do, and since everything in today's world is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's created (unlike when copyrights were first created), as the author of this post, I decree that you can only reply to this message if you first strip naked, pour maple syrup all over your body and then roll in feathers. Note that proof of compliance will be necessary. MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

join:2007-08-15

Austin, TX MyDogHsFleas Premium Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. So I read your entire post twice and nowhere does it answer my question. Show me where the copyright law has changed such that it used to be OK to do the things I listed, and now it isn't. I don't believe you can.



You seem to think that copyright law originally covered only publishing a work, not copying it, performing it, or creating a derivative work. I don't think that's actually true, and am challenging you to prove it. Rekrul

join:2007-04-21

Milford, CT Rekrul Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. said by MyDogHsFleas: So I read your entire post twice and nowhere does it answer my question.



Why do you think it's OK to violate my author's right to decide how my work is used? I've decided that it can only be replied to if you satisfy the above conditions.



Or are you admitting that copyrights don't provide an author with the absolute right to decide exactly how their work is used? And you failed to post proof that you had rolled naked in maple syrup and feathers.Why do you think it's OK to violate my author's right to decide how my work is used? I've decided that it can only be replied to if you satisfy the above conditions.Or are you admitting that copyrights don't provide an author with the absolute right to decide exactly how their work is used? MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

join:2007-08-15

Austin, TX MyDogHsFleas Premium Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. Are you just gonna be a dick, or are you going to put up or shut up? Rekrul

join:2007-04-21

Milford, CT Rekrul Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. said by MyDogHsFleas: Are you just gonna be a dick, or are you going to put up or shut up?



Still...



Why is it you claim that copyrights give authors absolute control over all aspects of how their works are used, but when I put some admittedly silly requirements on my messages, you just ignore them?



Everything in the US is automatically copyrighted at the time of creation. That's a fact and can be verified by any source. Do you dispute this?



Since my messages are copyrighted automatically, that makes me an author and under copyright law should give me just as many rights over my posts as it does to book authors or even filmmakers.



If the copyright holder of a film can place arbitrary restrictions on their works, like not showing it in public without a license, why can't I place silly restrictions on my messages and have them be just as valid?



Are you going to argue that authors only have the right to impose restrictions that others think are reasonable? Because there are a lot of restrictions on various copyrighted works that I don't think are reasonable.



Are you going to argue that such rights only apply when a work has commercial value? Because I can think of a hell of a lot of copyrighted works that no longer have any commercial value.



You apparently support an author's right to control how and where their works are used, but yet you freely ignore the restrictions I put on my messages in blatant defiance of the authors' rights that you supposedly support. It almost seems like you feel you can simply ignore an author's rights whenever you don't agree with them. The reason i haven't posted any links is that I can't find a government source that gives a comprehensive history of copyright and I have a feeling that you'll just dismiss any other source of information I might post as being unreliable or inaccurate.Still...Why is it you claim that copyrights give authors absolute control over all aspects of how their works are used, but when I put some admittedly silly requirements on my messages, you just ignore them?Everything in the US is automatically copyrighted at the time of creation. That's a fact and can be verified by any source. Do you dispute this?Since my messages are copyrighted automatically, that makes me an author and under copyright law should give me just as many rights over my posts as it does to book authors or even filmmakers.If the copyright holder of a film can place arbitrary restrictions on their works, like not showing it in public without a license, why can't I place silly restrictions on my messages and have them be just as valid?Are you going to argue that authors only have the right to impose restrictions that others think are reasonable? Because there are a lot of restrictions on various copyrighted works that I don't think are reasonable.Are you going to argue that such rights only apply when a work has commercial value? Because I can think of a hell of a lot of copyrighted works that no longer have any commercial value.You apparently support an author's right to control how and where their works are used, but yet you freely ignore the restrictions I put on my messages in blatant defiance of the authors' rights that you supposedly support. It almost seems like you feel you can simply ignore an author's rights whenever you don't agree with them. MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

join:2007-08-15

Austin, TX MyDogHsFleas Premium Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. a) I don't care if it's a government source. I want ANY source.



b) I'm completely ignoring your silly "requirements" to read your messages, so get over it. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 to TheGhost

Member to TheGhost

I hope not and hold out that by that time the light of day is shown and he can use one antenna per city for all subscribers.



It is not like he is taking a signal, decoding it, encoding it and then rebroadcasting it. He is simply taking a signal and sending it on down the line. MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

join:2007-08-15

Austin, TX MyDogHsFleas Premium Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. said by Skippy25: It is not like he is taking a signal, decoding it, encoding it and then rebroadcasting it. He is simply taking a signal and sending it on down the line.

Completely false. He is in fact recoding the audio/video for streaming to Internet connected devices, and also recording it for later replay. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. Not sure how you came up with "Completely false", but OK.



Transcoding is the direct digital-to-digital conversion of one encoding to another. This is usually done to incompatible or obsolete data in order to convert it into a more suitable format.



In true transcoding, the bitstream format of one file is changed from one to another without it undergoing another complete decoding and encoding process.



Understanding the process helps you substantiate a base for your argument. Otherwise, you just look silly. MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

join:2007-08-15

Austin, TX MyDogHsFleas Premium Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. Seriously? "Nyah Nyah it's not decoding it's Transcoding! HAH I WIN!"



Gmafb please.



DOES NOT MATTER what kind of transform it is, legally speaking.

Oh_No

Trogglus normalus

join:2011-05-21

Chicago, IL Oh_No to MyDogHsFleas

Member to MyDogHsFleas

said by MyDogHsFleas: said by Skippy25: It is not like he is taking a signal, decoding it, encoding it and then rebroadcasting it. He is simply taking a signal and sending it on down the line.



Completely false. He is in fact recoding the audio/video for streaming to Internet connected devices, and also recording it for later replay.

He is not recoding or streaming anything, the customer is which is 100% legal. Wrong, a customer is leasing the DVR equipment connected to the antenna and paying for the bandwidth to connect to the customers device.He is not recoding or streaming anything, the customer is which is 100% legal.

Xioden

Premium Member

join:2008-06-10

Monticello, NY Xioden to Chubbysumo

Premium Member to Chubbysumo

A company not that long ago tried streaming DVD's over the internet under the guise of "One DVD and one DVD Player per stream". Said company was sued and isn't offering that service anymore. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. As was this company, but it won it's first round. Lets see how it all plays out in the end though. MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

join:2007-08-15

Austin, TX MyDogHsFleas Premium Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. said by Skippy25: As was this company, but it won it's first round. Lets see how it all plays out in the end though.

They only "won" not getting a preliminary injunction slapped on them which would put them out of business instantly. That was a very very low bar they jumped over. The real battle will be at trial. Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. I wont argue that, but they did convince a judge that it was not as infringing on their rights as they think it is and thus were not ordered to stop as it was harming them. MyDogHsFleas

Premium Member

join:2007-08-15

Austin, TX MyDogHsFleas Premium Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. said by Skippy25: I wont argue that, but they did convince a judge that it was not as infringing on their rights as they think it is and thus were not ordered to stop as it was harming them.





Try actually doing some research and reading the decision as I did. Don't believe the spin from people who have an agenda. There is a surprising amount of outright lies mixed in with the exaggerations and framings. Not at all. They convinced a judge that the economic harm to Aereo if the injunction were granted would be extreme, and the economic harm to the local broadcasters if it were not granted would be material but not extreme. There was absolutely no consideration of infringement, that is what is decided at trial.Try actually doing some research and reading the decision as I did. Don't believe the spin from people who have an agenda. There is a surprising amount of outright lies mixed in with the exaggerations and framings. MyDogHsFleas MyDogHsFleas to Xioden

Premium Member to Xioden

They were not just sued. They were found to be in violation of the content owners' copyright. your moderator at work hidden : Personal attacks

MyDogHsFleas MyDogHsFleas to Chubbysumo

Premium Member to Chubbysumo

Apparently ChubbySumo gets butt hurt and whines to mods if someone calls him out on making stuff up and posting it like it was well known truth. Get over it dude. You ARE in fact completely making stuff up and posting it like it was truth. Read ANY article on the Aereo case and the ALL SAY that there are significant legal questions that remain to be decided. Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01

Duluth, MN ·Charter

Ubee E31U2V1

(Software) pfSense

Netgear WNR3500L

Chubbysumo Member Re: still 100% Apple dependent. what articles are you reading? your last response was a blatant troll, and was extremely off topic, so, im sure im not the only one who reported it. I keep my stuff on topic, and I would hope that if I didnt, someone would report it as well, since it helps keep the forums clean from trolls and spam.



I am reading current case law, and current laws on the books. Again, i point out that what Aereo is doing is akin to me putting an antenna on my neighbors roof(no matter distance), hooking it up to a DVR, and then streaming it to me(in any way). I am leasing the space, and have full control of the DVR with him having no access, therefore, its totally legal. I had to look these up when my uncle wanted to do exactly that because his house sits in a signal "dead" zone, only getting 1 channel OTA. He also did not get satellite signals, and no telecos would run out there, so he trenched a cable to his neighbors house about 1/2 a mile away, put up an antenna on leased property, and with a couple of line amps, he went on his merry way. Its legal as long as no two people are using the same antenna at the same time, and as long as your DVR space is managed(accessible) by you and you alone. Instead of looking at it as a "whole" model, look at the different parts of it, and see that there is specific case law granting them the rights to do exactly what they are, its just not from 1 gigantic case. With Comcasts Remote DVR case, along with a few other cases which have been won that make it legal to lease space for an antenna as long as the lessee has sole use of it, the service as a whole is legal, because then the streaming aspect is covered by the "slingbox" decision, which says its legal to stream your own paid for TV content to yourself.



My personal opinion: On a whole, this shows that broadcasters dont deserve the air they breathe, because they are holding back innovation to support their archaic business model, and people will continue to use services that appeal to them, legal or not, ignoring any laws on the books.

••• show 3 replies

jap

Premium Member

join:2003-08-10

038xx 1 edit jap to JasonOD

Premium Member to JasonOD

said by JasonOD : Diller knows he's on very thin ice legally. Any gung-ho platform investment isn't worth the risk.



When I posted



Possibly Aereo's objectives are something other than what they pretend. I don't rule that out. It's curios how they're going about things. Wish I knew more about iOS. Agreed ... but where's the platform hurdle? Playback is in web browser (HTML5) and there's periodic geo-locale verification to maintain stream. Not alot going on here.When I posted this I assumed HLS wasn't widely supported outside Apple but it is. It's even native in Android as of Honeycomb.Possibly Aereo's objectives are something other than what they pretend. I don't rule that out. It's curios how they're going about things. Wish I knew more about iOS. davidhoffman

Premium Member

join:2009-11-19

Warner Robins, GA davidhoffman Premium Member Aereo New Pricing. I read the fine print and they have a whopper of a problem. They stated that the antenna you want to access, "your" antenna, may not be available due to others using it. One of the arguments they have used to keep the broadcasters at bay is that the antenna and the DVR are almost totally controlled by the subscriber leasing the antenna and DVR. If "my" antenna can be used by another subscriber, that argument is false. These guys are going to get put out of business due to the nonsensical arguments they present as justification for not paying content providers or retransmission consent fees. If you say in court that your service works one way, but have terms of service that say it operates significantly differently, how well do you think you will do when the broadcasters show that you are lying in court?

••••• show 5 replies tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member free alternatives.. check out barrydriller.com once you register you can watch OTA for free.. now cable companies can't use buying broadcast basic to antenna viewers who can't get a good signal!



we'll see how long this lasts b4 the big companies go after these startups.. abc, nbc, cbs, fox etc..

Gozo8

join:2012-07-25 Gozo8 Member Re: free alternatives.. said by tmc8080: check out barrydriller.com once you register you can watch OTA for free.. now cable companies can't use buying broadcast basic to antenna viewers who can't get a good signal!



we'll see how long this lasts b4 the big companies go after these startups.. abc, nbc, cbs, fox etc..

Is that Kato Kaelin? your comment..

