dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-07-18 07:57:45: A few years ago, the courts shut down a dirt-cheap broadband TV service named Ivi, arguing that over the top video services weren't technically cable companies, and couldn't just start paying retransmission fees to become them. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1

4 recommendations

It's clear they are being frozen out

It appears they are being frozen out to the point where they can't do business - period.


mob
On the next level..
Premium
join:2000-10-07

Good old government owned by corporations

America is for the corporations, by the people, by order of the courts and legislature owned by the corporations.

Low taxes, freedom, "they" will take yer jawbs, etc, etc.


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to davidc502

Re: It's clear they are being frozen out

Exactly. They have nowhere to go now. The flow of contribution checks must really be cranking right now...


jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

2 recommendations

reply to davidc502
said by davidc502:

It appears they are being frozen out to the point where they can't do business - period.

Doesn't it, now?

I try real hard to avoid becoming a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut, but when you have the U.S. government telling a corporation two distinctly different things, that, together, simply prevents the company from existing, a particular group of special interests benefits and the consumer obviously loses, one is inclined to wonder...

Jim


batman

@50.182.54.x

Big surprise - 1 part of gov't out of sync with other part

Not surprising that 1 hand of the gov't isn't in sync with another part of the gov't. EVENTUALLY, the disparate decisions will make their way thru the courts and will be resolved. In a few years!!


PlusOne

@50.182.54.x
reply to jseymour

Re: It's clear they are being frozen out

said by jseymour:

said by davidc502:

It appears they are being frozen out to the point where they can't do business - period.

Doesn't it, now?

I try real hard to avoid becoming a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut, but when you have the U.S. government telling a corporation two distinctly different things, that, together, simply prevents the company from existing, a particular group of special interests benefits and the consumer obviously loses, one is inclined to wonder...

Jim

The HUGE gov't bureaucracy often works illogically, with one hand not knowing or caring get what the other hand is doing. No conspiracy is needed.

guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:3

They were not rejected, just read the article linked

"The office added that it would not refuse Aereo's filings outright, but rather would accept them provisionally since the company's case is still before the courts."

Copyright office is saying the courts have to work this out not them


imanogre

join:2005-11-29
Smyrna, GA

1 recommendation

reply to jseymour

Re: It's clear they are being frozen out

I dont think this is conspiracy... i think it's just the problem with government in general.... Very inefficient.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA

frank124c

join:2003-12-04
Brooklyn, NY

Aereo

This is the way the US government which is controlled by the big corporations work. One branch of the government fucks you in the ass, another branch fucks you in your throat.


US History

@66.211.145.x
reply to batman

Re: Big surprise - 1 part of gov't out of sync with other part

Civics 101 people, the Executive and the Judicial are supposed to be two independent co-equal branches of the government. This has been happening almost since the founding of our government in 1789.

truasian16

join:2003-11-10
Jersey City, NJ

aero through hollywood

you can't disturb hollywood america's number 1 export. Protected by the world's finest.


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1

The next step

The next step will be the cease and desist letter from the broadcasters lawyers.
--
Stop the Comcast-Time Warner merger, I'd rather Time Warner buy out Comcast.

G0d

join:2012-11-29

1 recommendation

What did they expect?

What did they expect would happen? They were trying to use loopholes and clever wording to justify there service. Eventually it was exposed for what it is and now they are paying the consequences. I think they were correct in being innovative but went about it the wrong way. Good luck to them now.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 recommendations

What! Did you read the article. The SCOTUS on one hand says they "act" like a cable company, the USPTO says they are not.

The "loophole" you are referring to is a leftist slant to "working within the law". So evidently SCOTUS and USPTO have differing opinions on the fact, and they "should have known" is pure junk, because even the government can't make up its mind.

The US should ERR on the side of business (which creates jobs and innovation, NOT THE GOVERNMENT), and let civil matters take course.

The problem is ENTIRELY the government, because they are doing what they do best, kill innovation and blind people with rules and regulations.

America is DEAD for innovation. The government via it's skilled lobbyists will make sure of that.


IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to davidc502

Re: It's clear they are being frozen out

Exactly. There are some very powerful interests fighting them.

The Copyright Office is clearly getting instructions from somewhere else, whether it's a trade association or Congrssional Member Office.

As they say, follow the money.


ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
reply to guppy_fish

Re: They were not rejected, just read the article linked

Correct, but let's all be honest here, we can all pretty much call the shot on how that will end....

biochemistry
Premium
join:2003-05-09
92361

SC

The truth is the Supreme Court screwed up the ruling. However, if they have decided that Aereo is in fact a cable company then how can the Copyright Office essentially deny that decision.
--
isheavenforreal.com


davidc502

join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TDS

3 recommendations

reply to elefante72

Re: What did they expect?

Thanks for telling us like it is Rush.

How about you think on your own, and stop letting the Political Entertainers muddle your mind. They are entertainers, and it's too bad some can't see them constantly stirring things up for their own rewards.

It's all political SLOP ^^^
--
Cord Cutter Hauppauge DTV Tuner Card PlayOn.tv Hulu.com Netflix.com Windows Media Center Guide.
Here's how »homes.yahoo.com/news/how-to-pay-···275.html

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to IowaCowboy

Re: The next step

They already shut down their service.

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 recommendation

reply to elefante72

Re: What did they expect?

They did err on the side of business -- existing businesses that make billions of dollars and have a lot of influence over how business should be done.

pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
reply to ptrowski

Re: It's clear they are being frozen out

The copyright office is offering it's interpretation of the law, the Supreme Court did the same. As they seemingly conflict, my guess is another court will determine if the regulatory interpretation of the Copyright office is somehow consistent with the decision by the Supreme Court on Aereo.

This just means more litigation, if the folks who run Aereo wish to bother. Our administration argued against Aereo at the Supreme Court. The copyright office is following administration policy, which happens to be legacy industry policy.
--
Congress could mess up a one piece jigsaw puzzle.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

Aereo

It doesn't really matter what the copyright office decides. Broadcasters will do everything in their power to make sure Aereo dies. That is what happens when you laugh at broadcasters and pretend to be the smartest guys in the room. They made absolutely no attempts to make friends because they were certain they would win. They deserve what they get if not for their attitude alone.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to rradina

Re: What did they expect?

The are choosing winners and losers. That should be for the civil courts to decide. It is relatively new for the USG to be the enforcement are and interpretation arm. If you guys agree that the government offices not in the judicial branch should be picking them, then that is a different line of thinking altogether.

en103

join:2011-05-02

Basically proof that government is bought/paid for

Do what 'big business' wants and help them keep their monopoly (too big to fail?) at all costs.
Your government - best that money/big business can buy.

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

1 recommendation

reply to elefante72

Re: What did they expect?

SCOTUS shouldn't be choosing winners and losers. I agree with Scalia's dissent. He didn't agree with Aereo's business model but questioned the majority's opinion on the grounds that the law isn't clear enough for the court to say they "look like" a cable company.

That said, the court did choose business. It certainly did not choose the consumer. It chose to protect the fleecing concept of retransmission revenues for content that's otherwise free OTA -- unless you rent an antenna (either through your local cable company or Aereo's scheme). It's ridiculous to draw a distinction and create a revenue stream for OTA content. OTA should be free regardless of how it's received as long as the consumer receiving the OTA content is within the signal's intended market. Of course the problem isn't this ruling. It's the shenanigans surrounding the must carry / transmission consent laws.

smcallah

join:2004-08-05
Home
reply to batman

Re: Big surprise - 1 part of gov't out of sync with other part

Do we really want the 3 branches of our government to be in sync? We're supposed to have checks and balances and opposing views.

If we didn't have that, we would be going down a slippery slope.


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3

Circumventing....

They tried to circumvent the "system" with a rent-a-tenna idea and a DVR to store recorded television (which then could be viewed live). That last bit (the live viewing) is why the SCOTUS ruled the way they did, because in a practical sense they were brining a television stream to peoples home mere seconds after cable and satellite brings it to homes, without paying the same fees cable and satellite.

But their setup is quirky. Rented antennas, leased remote DVR's, all designed to get around current laws. Not surprising they are finding themselves in a fight. If they were simply setting up streaming from the get-go, and negotiated with broadcasters, this would not have happened. (Their monthly rate would also be twice as much, most likely).
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


Anno

@68.62.236.x
said by maartena:

They tried to circumvent the "system" with a rent-a-tenna idea and a DVR to store recorded television (which then could be viewed live). That last bit (the live viewing) is why the SCOTUS ruled the way they did, because in a practical sense they were brining a television stream to peoples home mere seconds after cable and satellite brings it to homes, without paying the same fees cable and satellite.

But their setup is quirky. Rented antennas, leased remote DVR's, all designed to get around current laws. Not surprising they are finding themselves in a fight. If they were simply setting up streaming from the get-go, and negotiated with broadcasters, this would not have happened. (Their monthly rate would also be twice as much, most likely).

Nope, they couldn't have done from get go.

The broadcasters do not allow a-la-carta channel purchasing so they couldn't buy just the local channels, they would have to get all the same crap the cable companies do. That is the issue here.

And that "meer seconds" crap is a joke. The latency is dependent on the subscriber side. What if I lived next door to the data center, my latency would be single or double digits, that's not seconds? How is it any different vs. my network tuner I use now to get OTA at home?

Heck, the OTA providers induce delay themselves even. I can pick up one station from two different broadcast antenna, they are a few seconds out of sync for same thing. Maybe I should have to pay a fee because of that delay too.
I think the antenna and tuner manufacture should be sued too while we are at it. Especially the tunner provider, which like every software manufacture says, they own the software, firmware etc. on the device and I am just licensed to use it, so they must be a cable company because I don't actually own the stuff required to make it work. oh darn.

The whole issue is, this company wouldn't have needed to exist IF the broadcast companies would be fair. Why do they not allow you to purchase the specific channels you want?


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3
said by Anno :

Nope, they couldn't have done from get go.

The broadcasters do not allow a-la-carta channel purchasing so they couldn't buy just the local channels, they would have to get all the same crap the cable companies do. That is the issue here.

The whole issue is, this company wouldn't have needed to exist IF the broadcast companies would be fair. Why do they not allow you to purchase the specific channels you want?

Actually, not quite.

The locals are usually not owned by the big broadcasters, but AFFILIATED with a big broadcaster. They have their local programming such as local news and often local sports, and place e.g. NBC programming on the other hours.

And they are re-negotiated completely separate from the channels the affiliated broadcaster might own. This is why you see in e.g. the forums on DBSTalk.com discussions about e.g. NBC being blacked out in 6 markets, because those 6 locals happened to be owned by the same media company. They would be COMPLETELY separately negotiated from e.g. MSNBC or NBC Sports carriage.

So what you are saying is not true. On the other hand, you are right that all CABLE stations are bundled. Taking NBC as an example, they own MSNBC, NBC Sports, BRAVO, CNBC, Oxygen, and several other stations, and a cable company wanting to carry THOSE will have to negotiate with NBC for the full shabang, not just one or two stations.

That all said, I do agree people should be able to pick and choose the TV channels they want. It's one of the main reasons I cut the cord altogether and went OTA. With 2 MLB teams, 2 NBA teams, 2 NHL teams and 2 MLS teams, I don't want to pay rediculous per-subscriber prices for 8 teams, when I only want to watch 2 of those. (Go Ducks! Go LA Galaxy!) Why would I want to pay $4 for the Lakers, $4 for the Dodgers, $3 for the Angels, and god knows what for Kings, Chivas, etc.... (let alone the college sports shown on local channels from USC and UCLA, or PAC12 channel) I calculated there is like $30 worth of sport I DON'T WANT on my cable bill.

Enough. I took the a-la-carte a step further, and not picking individual channels, but individual programs. Works great here, Netflix household.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


CosmicDebri
Still looking for intelligent life

join:2001-09-01
Port Saint Lucie, FL

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco

Re: Aereo

So they got what they deserved and are being punished because they didn't want to make friends with the broadcasters as you call them?? What kind of loony thought is that?

I deserve to get shot in the head by crack dealers because I don't want to make friends with them??
--
Follow Your Bliss -- Joseph Cambell
I reject your Reality and substitute my own! -- Adam Savage, Mythbuster