6 ms·

I come down on the other side. The networks get the airwaves for free. It was a reasonable deal -- free bandwidth in exchange for a public service and an ad s

I come down on the other side. The networks get the airwaves for free. It was a reasonable deal -- free bandwidth in exchange for a public service and an ad supported business model. If the networks want to give up their bandwidth and let the government auction it off, fine. I just don't like this crap that they get the spectrum for free, and I can't rent an antennae of my choosing. IMO, either we allow Aereo, or we make the networks pay for the spectrum, or we get rid of over the air and use it for cell data. I am all for people getting paid for their content, but your argument is like saying libraries should be outlawed.

varelse 12y ago
"I am all for people getting paid for their content, but your argument is like saying libraries should be outlawed." I suspect if you set up a privately owned library and lent out bestsellers, that's exactly what would happen. That said, it'd be a real kicker IMO if the government stepped in and started broadcasting everything on the public airwaves for free anywhere in the world over the Internet. If the broadcasters don't like that, tough, go broadcast on cable. Of course, this will never happen because corporatocracy...
- jcampbell1 12y ago
  Renting books is perfectly legal in the US.
- bjt 12y ago
  You can rent books here: http://www.chegg.com/ http://www.chegg.com/ and here: http://www.bookrenter.com/ http://www.bookrenter.com/
- sib 12y ago
  "I suspect if you set up a privately owned library and lent out bestsellers, that's exactly what would happen." The First Sale Doctrine would disagree with you.
rayiner 12y ago
You're precisely right: it was a deal.[1] The broadcasters get the airwaves for free, and the public gets TV over those airwaves for free. The deal said nothing about allowing people to capture content over those airwaves and broadcast it over the Internet. You can hardly blame companies for not wanting to give up more on their end of a deal than they agreed to give up! [1] I think it's a waste of valuable spectrum on creaky inefficient technology, mind you, but it's the deal the government made.
- jcampbell1 12y ago
  I think you Kennedy and Roberts are all on the same page in thinking Aereo quacked like a retransmission company. The problem is Aereo got greedy and screwed up the marketing. Had their homepage always said, rent a streaming DVR for $10 a month, it wouldn't be a problem. Capturing content and streaming it over the internet is perfectly legal. TiVo does it. Cablevision does it. Slingbox does it. Aereo should have acted like a hardware rental company until after the supreme court ruling.
  - pissmonger 12y ago
    Are you really saying that Aereo failed due to a marketing? They always presented themselves as a technology platform that leases equipment.
- thedufer 12y ago
  "broadcast" is the wrong word here. The whole point of Aereo is that it was unicast, which is hard to rationalize as being different from running a wire.

varelse 12y ago

"I am all for people getting paid for their content, but your argument is like saying libraries should be outlawed." I suspect if you set up a privately owned library and lent out bestsellers, that's exactly what would happen. That said, it'd be a real kicker IMO if the government stepped in and started broadcasting everything on the public airwaves for free anywhere in the world over the Internet. If the broadcasters don't like that, tough, go broadcast on cable. Of course, this will never happen because corporatocracy...

jcampbell1 12y ago
Renting books is perfectly legal in the US.
bjt 12y ago
You can rent books here: http://www.chegg.com/ http://www.chegg.com/ and here: http://www.bookrenter.com/ http://www.bookrenter.com/
sib 12y ago
"I suspect if you set up a privately owned library and lent out bestsellers, that's exactly what would happen." The First Sale Doctrine would disagree with you.

rayiner 12y ago

You're precisely right: it was a deal.[1] The broadcasters get the airwaves for free, and the public gets TV over those airwaves for free. The deal said nothing about allowing people to capture content over those airwaves and broadcast it over the Internet. You can hardly blame companies for not wanting to give up more on their end of a deal than they agreed to give up! [1] I think it's a waste of valuable spectrum on creaky inefficient technology, mind you, but it's the deal the government made.

jcampbell1 12y ago
I think you Kennedy and Roberts are all on the same page in thinking Aereo quacked like a retransmission company. The problem is Aereo got greedy and screwed up the marketing. Had their homepage always said, rent a streaming DVR for $10 a month, it wouldn't be a problem. Capturing content and streaming it over the internet is perfectly legal. TiVo does it. Cablevision does it. Slingbox does it. Aereo should have acted like a hardware rental company until after the supreme court ruling.
- pissmonger 12y ago
  Are you really saying that Aereo failed due to a marketing? They always presented themselves as a technology platform that leases equipment.
thedufer 12y ago
"broadcast" is the wrong word here. The whole point of Aereo is that it was unicast, which is hard to rationalize as being different from running a wire.