Aereo suspending operations as of 11:30 today

[Ken VanTassell]

Each user had their own antenna, but not their own sling box type device because cloud dvr is already legal from a cable vision decision.—
Sent from Mailbox

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Gary's Ice Cream <gary@garysicecream.com>
wrote:

> Not really......according to the way an engineer explained Aereo to
> me.....each customer has their own slingbox connected to a tv receiver at
> the data center.  The customer has the channel changing capability of their
> own tuner at the data center so basically it is a remote tuner for your tv.
> According to the tech who worked there they don't have one feed per tv
> station coming in and it isn't being distributed through a distribution
> amplifier to a bunch of boxes.  Each customer has his or her own slingbox (I
> am using that as a generic term not as a brand name), their own tuner and
> their own antenna.  From the box it goes out to a combined internet
> connection onto the web and each customer has their own unique IP address.
> Correct me if I am wrong someone.
>                     Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA
> www.garysicecream.com           www.icecreamcollege.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn Mamros [mailto:mamros@MIT.EDU] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 9:24 PM
> To: Gary's Ice Cream
> Subject: RE: Aereo suspending operations as of 11:30 today
> But how is that different from what cable TV did when it first started?
> They pulled in the broadcast signal where the reception was good and sent it
> down the cable to their subscribers.  Replace the cable with the Internet,
> and it's the same thing.  All the cable companies were doing was renting a
> cable connection and a box.  At least that's how I see it.  It's just that
> Congress back then decided the broadcasters should get a cut from the pie.
> I'm not sure that was the right decision then (or now), but that's the law
> that was made.  If Aereo shouldn't have to pay broadcasters for
> retransmission, the cable companies shouldn't either.
> -Shawn
> ________________________________________
> From: Gary's Ice Cream [gary@garysicecream.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 3:01 PM
> To: Shawn Mamros
> Subject: RE: Aereo suspending operations as of 11:30 today
> The way I saw Aereo was that it was no different than someone having a
> "SlingBox" at their home and sending the signal to themselves somewhere else
> - except that instead of the SLingBox being in their own house it was
> located somewhere else where the reception was better....so basically all
> Aereo was doing was renting you a box and a location for the box to be
> housed with an internet connection for your convienence....they weren't in
> the program distribution business, they were in the equipment rental
> business.
>                     Gary's Ice Cream, Chelmsford, MA
> www.garysicecream.com           www.icecreamcollege.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boston-Radio-Interest
> [mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@lists.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of
> Shawn Mamros
> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2014 11:50 AM
> To: Brian T. Vita; Boston Radio Group
> Subject: RE: Aereo suspending operations as of 11:30 today
>>I really think that this is a case where big money, ie. the cable 
>>companies, wiped out the smaller startup.
> Actually, it was mostly the broadcasters who were fighting this one.  The
> issue in question is the provision in the Copyright Act of 1976 requiring
> cable companies to pay broadcasters for the right to retransmit their
> content.  The broadcasters argued that the same provision should apply to
> Aereo, and the Court agreed with that assessment.  Honestly, I have a hard
> time seeing a logical counterargument to that.
> It's probably long past time for the Copyright Act of 1976 to be reevaluated
> in light of all of the technology changes in the past four decades.  Good
> luck getting today's politicians to do that, though.
> -Shawn