Why Aereo Should Win at the Supreme Court (Guest Column)

[Tampa8]

This far far, far from clear. They said using a DVR was theft, a digital song you paid for could only be played one device, and on and on. This is about technology outpacing the industry, just as it has been for years. And should the Networks lose, guess what they will do. Exactly what they all have done in the past, join and embrace the new technology and make money.

jayn_j Early on there was a column that said what you are suggesting, the Networks, or possibly the individual affiliates are discriminating based on where you live. It's free if we say it's free. But the column also pointed out the FCC/Government has probably made that legal now.

 

[jayn_j]

jayn_j Early on there was a column that said what you are suggesting, the Networks, or possibly the individual affiliates are discriminating based on where you live. It's free if we say it's free. But the column also pointed out the FCC/Government has probably made that legal now.

Yep. Think of how technology has changed this equation. 30 years ago, a local affiliate extended his coverage by setting up a repeater station out in the boonies. The ABC affiliate might simulcast in 3 or 4 smaller towns across a wide area. Since the new legislation allows the affiliate to charge per subscriber, all of these repeater stations have gone dark (most during the digital transition) and the affiliate instead rapes the consumer while lowering his costs.

 

[Tampa8]

Also, as to the possible mistakes Aereo made, should they lose based only those mistakes, but not the actual service, they have won. They change those things and provide the service. However if they had to have a set top box I don't see that happening.

 

[Teehar]

Riffjim, do you actually think for 1 second, that making hulu netflix amazon wwe mlb nfl etc ,pay more for delivery that it will somehow keep joe average users bill lower? Come on you know it won't, it's all about money and greed period.Virtually all isps have caps in place, if you go over you pay more,seems kind of fair to me.It shouldn't make one dang bit of difference what content a paying user is using the b/width for.

How about this scenario, say since satguys is such a popular site joe isp decides to throttle it because in thier opinion too many people are visiting.Or google users are sucking up to much so they decide to throttle them . That's the kind of scenarios that could happen with the current net neutrality proposals. The question is where would it end, the answer is it wouldn't.

Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[Need]

Also, as to the possible mistakes Aereo made, should they lose based only those mistakes, but not the actual service, they have won. They change those things and provide the service. However if they had to have a set top box I don't see that happening.

I think interesting parties are watching. If Aereo lost, there will be others (or even Aereo itself) who will start from scratch and not made those mistakes. The OTA signal is digital. Internet is digital. There is nothing wrong with having a very very long wire from your TV to the antenna. If you buy an antenna and installed it on the roof of your neighbor upstairs, it would be legal. And if your upstairs neighbor wants to charge you $8 a month for you to put the antenna there, it is legal.

I think this new company should be called Velona (Very Long Antenna).

 

[Don in CT]

Come on guys...let us put on our big boy pants. Any entity that commercially profits from the retransmission of copyrighted works, without permission and/or payment to the copyright holder, is committing a theft of service...plain and simple...black & white...end of discussion...period! The broadcasters, the government, the law, and good ole common sense all agree. So this idiocy about why Aereo should be permitted to steal intellectual property is just as asinine has I started a thread stating why I should be legally be entitled to create a virtual sofa and invite 'paying guests' (wink, wink--nudge, nudge) to watch Cable TV (USA, TNT, ESPN, HBO, etc.) on my virtual sofa across a private virtual network. Hell, it's an encrypted virtual network and these people are basically 'seated in my living room watching television' thanks to technology, right? Wrong! It's thievery! And it's why AEREO is going to be bankrupted soon.

Elsewhere, the FCC is proposing new Internet traffic rules that would permit companies to pay folks like (Comcast, A&T, Verizon, etc.) for faster/preferred delivery. It's about time! I'm tired of freeloaders (yes, freeloaders and bandwidth suckers) like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Youtube and others paying a mere pittance while regular customers foot an disproportionate percentage of the network infrastructure bills...especially the regular folks who use the Internet to check email, pay bills and browse a few website while Joe Blow is streaming video 24x7. It's time for Netflix (and Joe Blow too) to pay their fair share.

You're free to disagree, if you wish, but that would not make me wrong nor you right. Anyway, AEREO should not and will not win this case.

So basically you are saying you want a closed internet? If the FCC gets it's way we will be bankrupt with fees. Why should I have to pay my ISP for internet and then they turn around and charge the content provider another fee so they don't get throttled. I am paying for a full dumb pipe, not for Comcast or any other ISP to the turn around and charge even more. Take the money I am giving you and upgrade your network. Don't cry foul that there is no money or bandwidth.