Utah court issues injunction to stop Aereo

Awkward setback for Aereo, the terrestrial via IP reception company in some of the USA states it was just starting to operate: the district court has issues an injunction. A heavy measure against a small company. The next phase in this story will be the supreme court case that starts in April. Looking at past history (e.g. VHS and Network PVR) this one will end as a victory for the technology sector. But this is just a crystal ball prediction. There is hardly any right or wrong in this matter, with the exception maybe that there should be some (private sphere type) constraint on copyright application.


Utah court issues injunction to stop Aereo.

Some older items on Aereo:


Mobile video to surpass viewing on Connected CE

Tv on the second screen may soon be over: the second screen is gradually becoming the first screen. Popularity is increasing steadily. THis according to ABI research, reported on BroadbandTVNews.

TV service companies (should) realise what this means and it creates a bit of a dilemma in pricing their commercial offers. Price 2nd screen too high and you loose too many; price it too low and you loose money by 1st screen viewers abandoning their prime screen contract. And there is the technical challenge of separating delivery to the two screen types. In the end maybe we will pay simply for each screen we want to view the content on.

Mobile video to surpass viewing on Connected CE.

Magine: new age full service OTT operator

Nice story on Videonet about a front runner in making OTT TV truly mainstream (including live channels): Magine. They are working with the mainstream channels (very much like any conventional operator) to bring a full package of channels under one navigation interface to the user: using OTT technology. The aggregation of multiple channels is crucial: customers do not want nightmarish diverse navigation. The app is already on all smart TVs and supports PCs, smart phones and tablets (clearly apple, still to come android – test versions seem to be available). It is also again clear smart TV makers cannot take this type of role: it requires a bvery clear business focus on aggregation and requires cross-TV-platform operation as well as direct streaming support to other types of devices – something TV manufacturers seldomly aspire to.


Videonet link: Magine is an example of what pure Cloud TV looks like | Videonet.

The Magine website link.

Posted in OTT

German VOD market fast growing

Very interesting article about the German VOD market on BroadbandTVNews. The German market is special due to the huge amount of free TV channels. This makes any complementary offer difficult: Sky Germany and it’s predecessors have struggled for a long time to even establish some profitable PayTV based on sports and movie content. There is a very fragmented market: 50 players.

Between TVOD, SVOD and Download-to-Own segments, SVOD is the smallest segment now but is projected to be the largest in a few years.Given the total market size and number of players not many people will get rich from this in quite some time.

German VOD market fast growing.

Posted in OTT

FilmOn versus Aereo

FilmOn X is a internet TV company in the US that was streaming broadcast channels apparently without consent of the networks involved. They has an injunction imposed on them preventing them to operate except for three states.


Filmon X argues that it has been willing to negotiate agreements with the networks – even though it also claims to use antenna technology per user – which seems harldy possible. Aereo uses it special antenna technology to have a valid claim every subscriber has its own antenna. And granted to FilmOn X: it does seem slightly awkward that free TV redistribution (within the licensed area) costs money – but the matter is quite complicated and with add-funding involved there is a very valid point from the channels. And copyright law helps the channels to make their point in court. In a latest move FilmOn wants to join the Aereo supreme court case to also argue their version of the same “principle”.

The key difference must lie in the antenna technologies used by both companies. FilmOn has only recently started the investment in antenna farm technology whereas this has been part of Aereo’s rollout from day one. Filmon claims to use truly independent antenna’s, but the basis of their current injunction was not based on their farm technology.

FilmOn antenna farm

On the other hand one wonders what is keeping the networks from developing internet based services and letting aggregators use those to offer things people want. Probably money: the present TV distribution model is probably more lucrative and distribution over the internet would eat out of cable subscriptions. But not offering viable alternatives for watching TV over the internet at a reasonable price may be very risky in the long run. The fact that companies like Aereo and FilmOn are there is testament to the demand.

FilmOn X seeks role in Aereo case | Advanced Television.

FilmOn antenna technology report on Appmarket.TV

Filmon antenna farm in Florida reported on Shockya