2 ms·
The problem is that they're not sidestepping the law, and that the law intentionally makes it daunting and complicated to fulfill this purpose. In other words,
by nkozyra 13y ago
The problem is that they're not sidestepping the law, and that the law intentionally makes it daunting and complicated to fulfill this purpose.
In other words, the law was designed to make such a prospect so unappealing that nobody would ever broach it. Now that someone has, well ...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- harryh 13y agoThe law wasn't designed to allow this. That's absurd. The laws were written before any of this was possible by people who didn't conceive of this sort of company.
- nkozyra 13y agoOf course it was. You're looking at it literally, as though it considered transcoders, etc. The 1 antenna per customer was very clearly conceived to prevent "disruptive" approaches to broadcast.
- logfromblammo 13y agoI think it was intended to erect a prohibitive barrier to any firm seeking entry. As it turns out, technical improvements have lowered that barrier such that it is no longer prohibitive--merely onerous. It was literally beyond comprehension of the judges when the rules were formulated that anyone could possibly do what Aereo has done. And now that it has been done, the court has the option to either undermine precedent and the illusion of impartiality or to destroy an enormously remunerative revenue stream for a very generous and politically grateful industry.
- nkozyra 13y agoYes, precisely. When enacted, 1 antenna per customer was essentially saying "you can't practically do this."