5 ms·

Not surprised. The service works by rebroadcasting over the air signals and then charging for them, right?

by rglover 12y ago

unreal37 12y ago
Not really. They rented you exclusively an antenna at their location, and you can use it to watch over the air TV. There was no rebroadcasting technically, which is how they hoped to get around the law.
- warfangle 12y ago
  That's the only difference between Aereo and the original CATV companies. Original CATV was one giant antenna on a hill piping the broadcast to homes that couldn't get the signal; this is thousands of antennas intelligently provisioned on a hill piping the broadcast and providing DVR functionality to homes that don't necessarily want to deal with using the crappy tv antenna -> computer hardware available.
djb_hackernews 12y ago
I've not used Aero and haven't heard their argument but I bet their business model is they rent antennas to customers. I'd be curious to know where that argument failed because surely I could create a business that rented antennas to customers and installed them on houses. Why does it matter the location of the antenna? Either way this is bad for the consumer, bad for technology, and bad for innovation.
- mikeash 12y ago
  I imagine the argument fails because it's obvious to anyone who looks at the company's offerings for two seconds that the "rent antennas" thing is just an excuse, and that their actual business model is that they charge for streaming TV.
  - djb_hackernews 12y ago
    So then where is the line drawn? Am I not allowed to put an antenna on my roof? What if I put it on my neighbors because it gets a better signal? I'm honestly curious what is wrong with renting an antenna from a company and streaming the signal, regardless of location.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      I don't think anything is wrong with renting an antenna and streaming the signal. What's illegal here (not that I think it should be, but it seems clear enough that this is what the law says) is providing a streaming TV service without obtaining the appropriate licenses. The implementation details on the backend are irrelevant. I don't think you'd have any trouble setting up DJB's Internet-Accessible Antenna Rental if that's what you actually offered. Stick some SDR equipment on the antenna and give me access to the raw bitstream. If I want to watch TV with the service, then I can tell your equipment to tune to the appropriate frequency, and then decode the bitstream locally. But if you set up DJB's TV Streaming without paying any license fees, and you just implement that by receiving signals from an antenna, it's a different beast even if it looks the same technologically.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      Of course you can put an antenna on your roof. You can probably also put an antenna on your neighbor's roof. Your neighbor cannot get into the business of rebroadcasting TV signals, though. Your intent to figure out exactly where the line is drawn is a failure that geeks have when going about the law. The law isn't written for a robot to unfailingly interpret. You won't get a good answer for the same reason the tribes making headphones out of coconuts won't get a good answer for how exactly they need to wear them for the cargo planes to come back.
    - vibrolax 12y ago
      You are allowed to put an antenna on your roof. If your neighbor allows you to, you can put the antenna on his roof. You can even rent the antenna. You are executing a private performance. You cannot subscribe to a streaming service that "rents you an antenna" unless the service licenses retransmission of the broadcaster's content.
HCIdivision17 12y ago
As I understand it, one of their goals was to not be considered a broadcaster. Rather, it's more akin to a wire in that it's one-to-one, not one-to-many. I am eager to hear some expert commentary on the ruling on what the side effects will be.

Not surprised. The service works by rebroadcasting over the air signals and then charging for them, right?

by rglover 12y ago

Not surprised. The service works by rebroadcasting over the air signals and then charging for them, right?

Not really. They rented you exclusively an antenna at their location, and you can use it to watch over the air TV. There was no rebroadcasting technically, which is how they hoped to get around the law.

warfangle 12y ago
That's the only difference between Aereo and the original CATV companies. Original CATV was one giant antenna on a hill piping the broadcast to homes that couldn't get the signal; this is thousands of antennas intelligently provisioned on a hill piping the broadcast and providing DVR functionality to homes that don't necessarily want to deal with using the crappy tv antenna -> computer hardware available.

djb_hackernews 12y ago

I've not used Aero and haven't heard their argument but I bet their business model is they rent antennas to customers. I'd be curious to know where that argument failed because surely I could create a business that rented antennas to customers and installed them on houses. Why does it matter the location of the antenna? Either way this is bad for the consumer, bad for technology, and bad for innovation.

mikeash 12y ago
I imagine the argument fails because it's obvious to anyone who looks at the company's offerings for two seconds that the "rent antennas" thing is just an excuse, and that their actual business model is that they charge for streaming TV.
- djb_hackernews 12y ago
  So then where is the line drawn? Am I not allowed to put an antenna on my roof? What if I put it on my neighbors because it gets a better signal? I'm honestly curious what is wrong with renting an antenna from a company and streaming the signal, regardless of location.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I don't think anything is wrong with renting an antenna and streaming the signal. What's illegal here (not that I think it should be, but it seems clear enough that this is what the law says) is providing a streaming TV service without obtaining the appropriate licenses. The implementation details on the backend are irrelevant. I don't think you'd have any trouble setting up DJB's Internet-Accessible Antenna Rental if that's what you actually offered. Stick some SDR equipment on the antenna and give me access to the raw bitstream. If I want to watch TV with the service, then I can tell your equipment to tune to the appropriate frequency, and then decode the bitstream locally. But if you set up DJB's TV Streaming without paying any license fees, and you just implement that by receiving signals from an antenna, it's a different beast even if it looks the same technologically.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Of course you can put an antenna on your roof. You can probably also put an antenna on your neighbor's roof. Your neighbor cannot get into the business of rebroadcasting TV signals, though. Your intent to figure out exactly where the line is drawn is a failure that geeks have when going about the law. The law isn't written for a robot to unfailingly interpret. You won't get a good answer for the same reason the tribes making headphones out of coconuts won't get a good answer for how exactly they need to wear them for the cargo planes to come back.
  - vibrolax 12y ago
    You are allowed to put an antenna on your roof. If your neighbor allows you to, you can put the antenna on his roof. You can even rent the antenna. You are executing a private performance. You cannot subscribe to a streaming service that "rents you an antenna" unless the service licenses retransmission of the broadcaster's content.

HCIdivision17 12y ago

As I understand it, one of their goals was to not be considered a broadcaster. Rather, it's more akin to a wire in that it's one-to-one, not one-to-many. I am eager to hear some expert commentary on the ruling on what the side effects will be.