Aereo suspending operations as of 11:30 today

[Bob DeMattia]

I've always had difficulty believing that a "dime sized" antenna would be able to effectivelyreceive multiple channels.  If they were carrying the complete Boston market, that would mean receiving signals from Boston, Needham, Marlborough, Boylston, Merrimack NH,Hudson NH, and Manchester NH with sufficient strength and without any multipath issues.The whole thing is troubling.  
You can agree or disagree about what the law should be, but it is what it is right now.  I think the justices got this one right.

-Bob

> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 18:40:18 -0700
> From: kenwvt@gmail.com
> To: gary@garysicecream.com
> Subject: RE: Aereo suspending operations as of 11:30 today
> CC: boston-radio-interest@lists.bostonradio.org
> 
> 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