TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-23-2014, 07:16 PM   #1
Johncv
Registered User
 
Johncv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chula Vista, CA
Posts: 1,371
Aereo decision pushed to Wednesday or Thursday … or even next Monday

Aereo decision pushed to Wednesday or Thursday … or even next Monday

Read more: Aereo decision pushed to Wednesday or Thursday … or even next Monday - FierceCable http://www.fiercecable.com/story/aer...#ixzz35VYCbhnI
Subscribe at FierceCable
__________________
Johncv

HDTiVo
27-inch iMac with i7 quad core processor
Johncv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 08:36 PM   #2
aridon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 233
The fallout from that decision will be interesting to watch if Aero is successful.
aridon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 09:53 PM   #3
LoadStar
LOAD"*",8,1
 
LoadStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 31,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by aridon View Post
The fallout from that decision will be interesting to watch if Aero is successful.
I think there could be fallout, no matter what the decision.
LoadStar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 10:16 PM   #4
astrohip
Stuart F
 
astrohip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Houston & Brenham TX
Posts: 7,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoadStar View Post
I think there could be fallout, no matter what the decision.
One way, the world will come to an end, as the major networks see it. The other way, the world will come to an end, as Aereo sees it.

So yeah, fallout.
astrohip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 10:27 PM   #5
telemark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrohip View Post
One way, the world will come to an end, as the major networks see it. The other way, the world will come to an end, as Aereo sees it.

So yeah, fallout.
There's middle ground. Aereo could be allowed a license in exchange for paying license fees. (not saying that will happen)
telemark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 10:52 PM   #6
terpfan1980
It's Just TV
 
terpfan1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Xbox Live: terpfan1980
Posts: 17,367
TC CLUB MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by telemark View Post
There's middle ground. Aereo could be allowed a license in exchange for paying license fees. (not saying that will happen)
That's what is likely to happen if Aereo loses. Heck, even if they win, they may lose in that area as they may get a Solomon like decision that says they can't retransmit for free but the broadcasters must offer them re-trans rights at a fair and comparable price to the prices that cable and satellite companies pay.

That lets Aereo stay in business, but takes away the free pass that they currently have when it comes to the content.
__________________
Home to a happy TiVo Roamio, a TiVo mini, and a couple of Premieres
Cancer truly sucks :(
--
Xbox Live gamertag/PSN id: terpfan1980
terpfan1980 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 11:23 PM   #7
rainwater
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by terpfan1980 View Post
That's what is likely to happen if Aereo loses. Heck, even if they win, they may lose in that area as they may get a Solomon like decision that says they can't retransmit for free but the broadcasters must offer them re-trans rights at a fair and comparable price to the prices that cable and satellite companies pay.
I'm not sure Aereo would even accept that. They are pushing full throttle with their investment in their OTA technology. I just don't see them caving and just licensing the OTA networks. To be fair, they seem to be open to licensing non-OTA channels though.
rainwater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 11:46 PM   #8
telemark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by terpfan1980 View Post
That's what is likely to happen if Aereo loses. Heck, even if they win, they may lose in that area as they may get a Solomon like decision that says they can't retransmit for free but the broadcasters must offer them re-trans rights at a fair and comparable price to the prices that cable and satellite companies pay.

That lets Aereo stay in business, but takes away the free pass that they currently have when it comes to the content.
A true loss for Aereo would be they have no allowance to retransmit without the networks permission. Then the network affiliates refuse to give them permission, outright. Aereo would not be able to gain subscribers without the base number of channels and would have to find a new business model.

The middle ground is a compulsive license (fee), Aereo might still operate with a different pricing scheme.

A true win, is Aereo doesn't have to have permission nor pay.

A draw, is they send it back to the lower court or somehow don't rule. Aereo would then be legal to operate in half the country, and be barred in the other half.

We've been through this before with Music, and Music on Radio, and Music on the Net, (Pandora), and we settled on compulsary licenses.

Last edited by telemark : 06-24-2014 at 07:46 PM.
telemark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 01:00 AM   #9
unitron
Registered User
 
unitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: semi-coastal NC
Posts: 13,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by telemark View Post
A true loss for Aereo would be they have no allowance to retransmit without the networks permission. Then the network affiliates refuse to give them permission, outright. Aereo would not be able to gain subscribers without the base number of channels and would have to find a new business model.

The middle ground is a compulsive license (fee), Aereo might still operate with a different pricing scheme.

A true win, is Aereo doesn't have to have permission nor pay.

A draw, is they send it back to the lower court.

We've been through this before with Music, and Music on Radio, and Music on the Net, (Pandora), and we settled on compulsary licenses.

I don't think your "true loss for Aereo" scenario comes to pass, regardless of how the court rules, because I don't see the broadcasters saying "we don't want those people as viewers, no matter how much they pay us".


I would prefer a complete victory for Aereo, since all they're doing is serving as an antenna for people who are entitled to receive the signal without paying the stations (who are using public property over which they transmit those signals).

Where things would, I would think, get really interesting, is if Aereo gets treated like cable and satellite.

Will every broadcaster in an Aereo-served market be able to force Aereo to carry them and pay them $X per subscriber regardless of whether any subscriber ever watches them?

Will someone try to force "bunding" onto Aereo?

If subscribers to Aereo have to pay extra to the broadcasters the way cable and satellite subscribers do, then the way Aereo does things would make per channel a la carte quite easy to do technically and financially. If you watch ABC and CBS, but never NBC or FOX, Aereo knows, and could pass along your money to only the channels you watch.

If broadcasters fight that then we'll know it has nothing to do with fairness or copyright and is all about rent-seeking, and the next thing you know they'll expect money from people who don't even watch TV just because those people are in their coverage area.
__________________
(thisismysigfile)


"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Darth TiVo, 14 February, 2011

Last edited by unitron : 06-24-2014 at 01:15 AM.
unitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 01:13 AM   #10
zalusky
Registered User
 
zalusky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 3,942
I am wondering if the reason they are delaying the decision is because it will be controversial and they want to get out of town similar to how the ACA decision was delayed to the last possible day.
__________________
I will never forget the face of my wife as I left to go the operating room to donate my kidney and give her back her life.
zalusky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 08:13 AM   #11
dlfl
Cranky old novice
 
dlfl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Near Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 6,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitron View Post
....... and the next thing you know they'll expect money from people who don't even watch TV just because those people are in their coverage area.
Knowing the way the fed govt typically throws (our) money at just about everything, I would be willing to bet that a thorough analysis would show this is already happening in some form or another.

As an example at the local level, my tax money was used to subsidize the construction of a baseball stadium and I can't even buy a ticket to attend a game. All the seats are sold out to season tickets for years in advance. Why isn't the cost borne entirely by those who buy tickets?
__________________

"It must be swell to be so perfect and odor-free" -- Del Griffith


VideoReDo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

pyTivo users: Try
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dlfl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 08:54 AM   #12
zalusky
Registered User
 
zalusky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 3,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
Knowing the way the fed govt typically throws (our) money at just about everything, I would be willing to bet that a thorough analysis would show this is already happening in some form or another.

As an example at the local level, my tax money was used to subsidize the construction of a baseball stadium and I can't even buy a ticket to attend a game. All the seats are sold out to season tickets for years in advance. Why isn't the cost borne entirely by those who buy tickets?
Just stop it! Your property values probably went up and there may be more neighborhood jobs because of the stadium. There are often a lot of benefits to people who never attend a game.

I don't have school age kids and my property taxes have gone up lately due to all these school propositions. Why should I pay! Of course I realize my property values have a big connection the quality of our local schools.
__________________
I will never forget the face of my wife as I left to go the operating room to donate my kidney and give her back her life.
zalusky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 09:17 AM   #13
Chris Gerhard
Registered User
 
Chris Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: AR
Posts: 5,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlfl View Post
Knowing the way the fed govt typically throws (our) money at just about everything, I would be willing to bet that a thorough analysis would show this is already happening in some form or another.

As an example at the local level, my tax money was used to subsidize the construction of a baseball stadium and I can't even buy a ticket to attend a game. All the seats are sold out to season tickets for years in advance. Why isn't the cost borne entirely by those who buy tickets?
I have always resented the tax subsidized sports stadiums and don't believe in the long run the benefit to the taxpayer justifies the cost. I know the arguments in favor of these sort of tax subsidies but I am far from convinced and would rather not have to pay the tax and just take my chances. Let the owners of the stadiums or teams and ticket buyers pay the costs and leave me out.

I also hated the federal cash for clunkers program, all I participated in was paying my share of the taxes so those with clunkers could get a good deal.
__________________
Home Theater - OTA TiVoHD/1.16TB/NSZ-GS8 GTV
MBR - OTA TiVoHD/660GB/NSZ-GT1 GTV
Den - OTA TiVo Premiere/2TB/NSZ-GT1 GTV
Chris Gerhard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 12:35 PM   #14
drebbe
Carbon Blob
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sector 7G
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by zalusky View Post
I am wondering if the reason they are delaying the decision is because it will be controversial and they want to get out of town similar to how the ACA decision was delayed to the last possible day.
More likely it's late because oral arguments were late. Some of the cases yet to be decided had oral arguments months before Aereo was heard in April. Two months from oral arguments to a decision is about as fast as they go.

The Justices seemed skeptical of both sides' arguments so it will be interesting to see what they come up with. (3 sides to every argument, your side, my side and the truth)
drebbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 12:50 PM   #15
Rob Helmerichs
I am Groot!
 
Rob Helmerichs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 31,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard View Post
I have always resented the tax subsidized sports stadiums and don't believe in the long run the benefit to the taxpayer justifies the cost. I know the arguments in favor of these sort of tax subsidies but I am far from convinced and would rather not have to pay the tax and just take my chances. Let the owners of the stadiums or teams and ticket buyers pay the costs and leave me out.
Yeah, I think the biggest benefit to the taxpayer is that the team doesn't move away, leading to far, far greater costs down the road to get a new team in.

It's unfortunate that the system has evolved to the point where taxpayer-paid stadia are the norm, but if (as we learned here recently) the people don't buy the team a new stadium, they'll just move somewhere that will buy them one. And buying a new team costs more than just buying a new stadium.
__________________
“You know, this badge means something.”
“You made it at Kinko's.”
Rob Helmerichs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 03:29 PM   #16
FitzAusTex
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 146
I've got a serious foot problem, so my days of getting up on ladders and rooftops are probably over. I'm certain I'm oversimplifying, but Aereo doesn't seem much different to me than my paying a handyman to put an antenna on my roof. I COULD put my own antenna up, if not for my foot, but I can't, so I'd pay someone to do it for me. If Aereo really makes actual use of one tiny antenna per customer to grab ota signal, then I don't see how the court can legitimately rule against them. Now if they tiny antennas are just a ruse, and they're really using a master antenna per market, that's a different story and probably falls under regular retransmission rules.
FitzAusTex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 03:54 PM   #17
Chris Gerhard
Registered User
 
Chris Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: AR
Posts: 5,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by FitzAusTex View Post
I've got a serious foot problem, so my days of getting up on ladders and rooftops are probably over. I'm certain I'm oversimplifying, but Aereo doesn't seem much different to me than my paying a handyman to put an antenna on my roof. I COULD put my own antenna up, if not for my foot, but I can't, so I'd pay someone to do it for me. If Aereo really makes actual use of one tiny antenna per customer to grab ota signal, then I don't see how the court can legitimately rule against them. Now if they tiny antennas are just a ruse, and they're really using a master antenna per market, that's a different story and probably falls under regular retransmission rules.
The tiny antennas are a red herring, Aereo is selling copyright protected content it obtains for free, nothing more, nothing less. Aereo customers are paying for that content, nothing more, nothing less. The rest is a diversion.
__________________
Home Theater - OTA TiVoHD/1.16TB/NSZ-GS8 GTV
MBR - OTA TiVoHD/660GB/NSZ-GT1 GTV
Den - OTA TiVo Premiere/2TB/NSZ-GT1 GTV
Chris Gerhard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 04:04 PM   #18
lessd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 6,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by FitzAusTex View Post
I've got a serious foot problem, so my days of getting up on ladders and rooftops are probably over. I'm certain I'm oversimplifying, but Aereo doesn't seem much different to me than my paying a handyman to put an antenna on my roof. I COULD put my own antenna up, if not for my foot, but I can't, so I'd pay someone to do it for me. If Aereo really makes actual use of one tiny antenna per customer to grab ota signal, then I don't see how the court can legitimately rule against them. Now if they tiny antennas are just a ruse, and they're really using a master antenna per market, that's a different story and probably falls under regular retransmission rules.
Any RF engineer will tell you that the so called tiny antenna is an element in a master antenna, let them show us that just one of their tiny antennas can bring in all the OTA stations, heck I tried a big UHF antenna in my attic to test out OTA in my area, I could not get all the networks, I am sure a roof mounted antenna with a rotor could get them all, but that not how Aereo works. Think about this; you go to Aereo antenna farm and cut off one tiny antenna, does one and only one customer that was assigned to that tiny antenna have a total loss of their OTA, as would happen if I cut someone's house mounted OTA antenna??.
__________________
Les Daniels

_____________________________________________
3 Roamio Plus upgraded to 2Tb & 3Tb, and 2 Minis,
lessd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 06:08 PM   #19
CrispyCritter
Purple Ribbon Wearer
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by lessd View Post
Think about this; you go to Aereo antenna farm and cut off one tiny antenna, does one and only one customer that was assigned to that tiny antenna have a total loss of their OTA, as would happen if I cut someone's house mounted OTA antenna??.
I would certainly expect so, because it is trivial for Aereo to program their system to require a signal from that tiny antenna before forwarding anything to the associated customer. Whether there is a complete physical separation between antennas is a different question, but the one you asked is not something Aereo would have overlooked before starting up as they anticipated the legal battle.
__________________
CrispyCritter
TiVo Roamio:Felix TiVo Premiere:Bob TiVo XL4:Fred TiVo HDXL:Sharon TiVoHD:Susan
CrispyCritter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 07:17 PM   #20
telemark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by lessd View Post
Any RF engineer will tell you that the so called tiny antenna is an element in a master antenna, let them show us that just one of their tiny antennas can bring in all the OTA stations, heck I tried a big UHF antenna in my attic to test out OTA in my area, I could not get all the networks, I am sure a roof mounted antenna with a rotor could get them all, but that not how Aereo works. Think about this; you go to Aereo antenna farm and cut off one tiny antenna, does one and only one customer that was assigned to that tiny antenna have a total loss of their OTA, as would happen if I cut someone's house mounted OTA antenna??.
That was my initial opinion as well that it would have to be an antenna array, but they did significant R&D on antennas and anyway this is an appeal case, so the trial court has already examined and settled this point.

According to the briefs, the facts are not under dispute. It's only a question of legal (copyright/broadcast law) interpretation at this point.

On an engineering note, Aereo gets to choose where they put up their antennas. They would be doing significant RF measuring and predicting to find the best property before setting up shop. Households (except RV's) are constrained by their preexisting locations.

Last edited by telemark : 06-24-2014 at 07:36 PM.
telemark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 07:35 PM   #21
MikeAndrews
Registered abuser
 
MikeAndrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northern Illinois (Dn Nr WI)
Posts: 12,356
Aero pays a per sub license fee, and to preclude those who say that any shmoe with an antenna gets the stuff for free, they impose an antenna tax like the tax on blank audio cassettes and blank audio CDs.

....and while we're at it just put a tax on TVs cause y'all are stealing anyway until we can tax eyeballs.
__________________
1) Series 4 Premiere - Lifetime
2) Series 3 OLED - Lifetime.
2) Series 2 DT 500GB
Mac Mini NAS with 9 7 x 2TB drives.
UVerse and OTA

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by MikeAndrews : 06-24-2014 at 07:43 PM.
MikeAndrews is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 07:41 PM   #22
telemark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeAndrews View Post
....and while we're at it just put a tax on TVs cause y'all are stealing anyway until we can tax eyeballs.
For comparison, the BBC tax is $20.60/month per household with a TV. Households without TV's don't pay, and those with B&W sets pay less.

In the US we don't pay a fee, but the content contains ads.
telemark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2014, 12:52 AM   #23
Johncv
Registered User
 
Johncv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chula Vista, CA
Posts: 1,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by terpfan1980 View Post
That's what is likely to happen if Aereo loses. Heck, even if they win, they may lose in that area as they may get a Solomon like decision that says they can't retransmit for free but the broadcasters must offer them re-trans rights at a fair and comparable price to the prices that cable and satellite companies pay.

That lets Aereo stay in business, but takes away the free pass that they currently have when it comes to the content.
Or, SCOTUS may rule that the retrans fees are illegal because they use public airwaves in which case no one has to pay.
__________________
Johncv

HDTiVo
27-inch iMac with i7 quad core processor
Johncv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2014, 01:04 AM   #24
Johncv
Registered User
 
Johncv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Chula Vista, CA
Posts: 1,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by telemark View Post
For comparison, the BBC tax is $20.60/month per household with a TV. Households without TV's don't pay, and those with B&W sets pay less.

In the US we don't pay a fee, but the content contains ads.
I for one would pay $20.60 a month to make ads goway.
__________________
Johncv

HDTiVo
27-inch iMac with i7 quad core processor
Johncv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2014, 03:45 AM   #25
unitron
Registered User
 
unitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: semi-coastal NC
Posts: 13,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Gerhard View Post
The tiny antennas are a red herring, Aereo is selling copyright protected content it obtains for free, nothing more, nothing less. Aereo customers are paying for that content, nothing more, nothing less. The rest is a diversion.
Aereo is not selling content, they are providing an antenna service. If you put it on the public airwaves in my area, I have a right to receive it for free, and I can use a DVR on it. Aereo would just let me subcontract out part of that labor and equipment.


I almost wish some court years and years ago had ruled that it was illegal under any circumstances for viewers to get the signal from a broadcast station in any way other than over an antenna installed on the viewer's premises.

Then they'd be begging to be carried on cable and Aereo for free just to get enough viewers so that they could sell airtime to local advertisers.
__________________
(thisismysigfile)


"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Darth TiVo, 14 February, 2011
unitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2014, 10:10 AM   #26
Turtleboy
Registered User
 
Turtleboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Ft. Lauderdale
Posts: 47,930
TC CLUB MEMBER
And they lost.
Turtleboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2014, 10:23 AM   #27
lessd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 6,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by telemark View Post
That was my initial opinion as well that it would have to be an antenna array, but they did significant R&D on antennas and anyway this is an appeal case, so the trial court has already examined and settled this point.

According to the briefs, the facts are not under dispute. It's only a question of legal (copyright/broadcast law) interpretation at this point.

On an engineering note, Aereo gets to choose where they put up their antennas. They would be doing significant RF measuring and predicting to find the best property before setting up shop. Households (except RV's) are constrained by their preexisting locations.
Other than copyright/broadcast law I still think the antennas are a sham, but what difference does that make, if they used a master antenna they would have the same legal issue, does the source make any difference ??, it the re-transmission by a money making business that is the problem. Even sports bars have to pay (to stay legal) something to show any TV program to their customers, how the sports bar get the program does not matter (except maybe cost to the bar).
__________________
Les Daniels

_____________________________________________
3 Roamio Plus upgraded to 2Tb & 3Tb, and 2 Minis,
lessd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2014, 10:24 AM   #28
Rob Helmerichs
I am Groot!
 
Rob Helmerichs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 31,864
6-3! By Roberts Court standards, that's practically a landslide!
__________________
“You know, this badge means something.”
“You made it at Kinko's.”
Rob Helmerichs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2014, 10:29 AM   #29
buscuitboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 694
too bad to see this. Looks like Comcast and other big networks have once again triumphed. unfortunate & I tend to think this spells the end of Aereo
buscuitboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2014, 12:23 PM   #30
Chris Gerhard
Registered User
 
Chris Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: AR
Posts: 5,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by unitron View Post
Aereo is not selling content, they are providing an antenna service. If you put it on the public airwaves in my area, I have a right to receive it for free, and I can use a DVR on it. Aereo would just let me subcontract out part of that labor and equipment.


I almost wish some court years and years ago had ruled that it was illegal under any circumstances for viewers to get the signal from a broadcast station in any way other than over an antenna installed on the viewer's premises.

Then they'd be begging to be carried on cable and Aereo for free just to get enough viewers so that they could sell airtime to local advertisers.
If you believe that, I would like to sell you an interest in the Brooklyn Bridge. People are interested in receiving TV signals at a price lower than their local cable company, Aereo came up with a sneaky way to try to do that without paying for the content. The Supreme Court was able to see through the cloud of dust Aereo had kicked up and was hiding behind.
__________________
Home Theater - OTA TiVoHD/1.16TB/NSZ-GS8 GTV
MBR - OTA TiVoHD/660GB/NSZ-GT1 GTV
Den - OTA TiVo Premiere/2TB/NSZ-GT1 GTV
Chris Gerhard is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVo® is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 AM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |