3 ms·
Of 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 "
by nkozyra 13y ago
Of 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."