With TVE working better and better, I wonder if anybody has tried to host a Channels DVR server in a AWS Linux VM. I guess getting locals through AWS would be an issue depending on the region selected for the server. But for those traveling a lot and using always a remote connection, maybe AWS is better and faster than a home server...?
Most networks block IPs from VPS/cloud hosts. Also, the bandwidth transfers might end up costing you a bit:
Not to mention storage.
If you have no HDHR and just want internet streams, I bet it would work for some content. Because 90% of my Channels use is through HDHRs connected to antennas, its not something feasible for me, but I would be interested in knowing what does and does not work. Could probably do internet streams from Pluto. And maybe the TVE auth would work if you are paying for cable (or internet-based cable-like thing that gives you TVE auth).
unrelated / somewhat related: someone needs to come up with a legit antenna / hdhr rental service to replace locast.
1 Like
You mean charge people a subscription to rebroadcast my HDHR streams over the internet? I am sure thats not legal. Even if I did it for free and accepted donations, didn't Locast get shut down doing that? And it would use a ton of bandwidth. Depends on the show, but my OTA sometimes gets up to 16mbps or higher. Imagine 10 users watching it at the same time. I don't have the upstream to support it.
Not likely to happen anytime soon. See:
oh, so we're still rolling with the idea that locast was shut down for any reason other than that they were using their funds to expand into new markets? cool.
i didn't mean you personally from your house, i meant someone needs to set it up in a datacenter with an antenna on the roof of some sort.
locast was shut down because they were using their donations to expand into new markets. the court did not rule that what they were doing in rebroadcasting the streams was illegal, no matter how much some users here want to make believe that's what happened.
1 Like
While that may be what the court decided on paper, there was never really any hope that they would prevail. The fact that they chose to accept summary decisions on other stronger parts of their case didn't help them, either.
That is essentially what Aereo was doing.
And my references to those two cases was simply to give background and information. The Locast reference was more to the fact that even operations that would be legal and in the clear have almost no chance of succeeding. The Aereo reference was to show that what you proposed has already been attempted, and ruled illegal. Perhaps a different judge in a different jurisdiction may find differently.
More to the point of the OP: I have actually installed Channels on a VPS on Vultr, and almost no channels authenticated. You are welcome to try on AWS, but I bet you'll be quite dissatisfied with the results.
what the court decided on paper is literally the only thing that matters.
3 Likes
It seems you are not considering the fact that the reason the big broadcasting networks brought this to court in the first place was because they didn’t like their content being rebroadcast without paying their rebroadcast fees. Thats the only thing that matters. If some company tries to do it again, the broadcasters will bring it to court again and have a ton of money to put into ensuring that they will find a way to win their case, even if it means coming up with a completely different reason for why they are right. They will get it shut down.
i understand perfectly why the networks brought the suit, thanks. that doesn't mean they were correct.
in fact, based on what the court decided, locast was perfectly within the letter of the law except for the fact that they were using donations to expand into new markets.
also, IIRC, this is not even remotely close to what aereo was doing. they were using microscopic antennas and adding a new antenna for each subscriber. they were also not a non-profit, which was part of the problem (and how locast would have been operating legally had the judge not applied a ridiculous interpretation of the law in that expansion somehow wasn't a valid use of their funds).
anyway, this thread has jumped the shark. i apologize.
A good alternative to AWS if transfer costs are an issue, like they were for me is a company called Linode - great service, great pricing, great customer service, works like a Champ...
Frantech/buyvm is another one I use for various projects.
Much easier and secure to set up a VPN on that network and just stream. I got that set up now.
Linode is great, but Amazon also offers an AWS service called Lightsail with fixed pricing that mirror's Linode's pricing. So it's AWS without the runaway "gotcha" costs.
On the other hand, Linode is just as good as AWS, and the support is even better.
Still gotcha costs for data transfer on lightsail.
While theoretically possible and ignoring storage, AWS charges for outgoing data so unless it was used sparingly it could get very expensive.