Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB
But they are providing the content, are they not (it goes thru their hardware to get to the consumer, same as Aereo)? And they are charging a fee for that service, are they not? Note that a lot of people pay more for higher internet speeds, for the sole purpose of getting that copyrighted content. Without it, people would pay less.
No. Netflix is providing the content. The, in turn, subcontract to the ISP to relay the media. There is no such relationship between the stations and Aereo - or the ISPs, for that matter.
No doubt, in a fair world, the ISPs would be paying Netflix to have the content available to suscribers who are more than willing to pay for faster internet speeds in order to take advantage of Netflix and other streaming services.
Too bad it's not a fair world.
That's why my point still stands: the ISPs will be perfectly safe, especially if capital hill and other areas of the government don't want to see something tragic happen to the speed and quality of internet service they get.
How is Aereo not an ISP? Is it because they use antennas and dvr's instead of miles of cable? Or, is it because the only thing they provide is one specific kind of content? Would expanding their business to include other things somehow make them less of a cable company and more of an ISP, since the rules are apparently different for the two different types of companies?
Aereo doesn't provide access to the internet. They use the internet. You need an ISP to get Aereo. They provide content owned by others like Netflix does or like cable companies do, especially since they are providing live, linear TV streams. The difference between them is Aereo doesn't have permission to do so.
Expanding their content wouldn't matter if they still do that one thing they aren't supposed to.
I think the only thing that could really clinch it for them is if they were operating under a single, buy-out business model (like Slingbox) rather than a subscription model.
It's impossible to separate the content from the service Aereo provides since the content is key to people paying for it. As a result, they can't create an air tight argument that they aren't charging for the content, no matter how many times they claim it.
Even if the ISP doubles as a cable TV provider and pays for the rights to distribute content via. cable TV subscriptions, that does not give them the right to distribute that same content via. the internet, unless the contract specifically states it. After all, the number of consumers reached via. cable TV AND internet would be significantly higher than those reached by cable TV alone. Wouldn't the networks want to know how many consumers will be getting their content when they sign a contract with a cable company, so they can adjust their asking price?
They know exactly how many customers will be getting their content. The answer is everyone, since the local stations are on the most basic tier. They know exactly how many subscribers a cable company has, and it's how ever much money per month, for each of them. How many actually watch is irrelevant.
Yes. Netflix pays the networks for the content. Netflix sends that content down the internet pipelines. Various ISP's handle traffic duties for said content to make sure it gets to the end consumer. The ISP's get paid to do this. The ISP's don't have to pay the networks for the rights to carry their content.
That's because Netflix has subcontracted to them for them to carry their content. Their fees are wrapped up in that. They pay the networks (or studios) X amount of dollars per subscriber and paying the ISP in turn makes those subs available to them.
The ISP, for Netflx, is more like a cellular company, the police or the local branch of the FBI renting space on a tower for their radio communications. They pay more for a higher slot, space for a bigger transmitter or the electricity for a more powerful one. They also pay for the maintenance of the lights that keep planes from crashing into the tower and the guide wires that hold it up.
Likewise, OTA broadcasters pay the networks for the content. OTA broadcasters send that content over the airwaves. Aereo picks up the signal (which is legal) and handles traffic duties to ensure that it makes it to the end customer (who also has a legal right to said content). Aereo gets paid to do this. Aereo has to pay the networks for the rights to carry their content?
You're shifting Aereo too far down the chain. They aren't the ISP. They don't provide the actual run or bandwidth to your home. They are a middleman like Netflix.
If Aereo were an ISP, you wouldn't need to pay an ISP to get them.
This makes it sound like it's ok for the cable companies, networks, and ISP's to establish one set of rules for themselves, because they are, in many cases, all owned by the same parent company, but set a different set of rules for anyone else. On the one hand, you could call this capitalism. But, I think it stinks of crony capitalism, good `ol boys network, and/or monopoly. Take your pick. It's a shame that corporations like these seem to abuse the system. For the record, I am a strong proponent of free trade and a conservative, but, I have to ask myself what Teddy Roosevelt would do if he were President today. Maybe we just need a hard reset every so often.
You sound surprised that the ISPs would have two sets of rules.
When it comes to being responsible for content, they'll claim their just pipes full of data.
When it comes to charging service providers more, they'll claim they're networks overburdened with excessive data streamed from those data mooches like Netflix.
Back to the real concern...I do believe it is possible to render a verdict which makes it clear that what Aereo is doing is illegal without it making other activities that should be legal, illegal. However, I do not think it is quite as simple as it sounds.
No, it's not simple. I never said that.
However, there seems to be terror and doom pronounced in every tech article about the subject as if doomsday is bound to occur, yet know one can cite a legal service that will be affected by a verdict against Aereo, assuming the argument is that they are acting as a cable carrier in the cloud.
Barry Diller certainly wants everyone to think that will happen, because if people are scared of that effect, they're more likely to support Aereo. The thing is, the SCOTUS can't rule on Aereo's actions based on speculation. They can only consider the exact language to use in the verdict to ensure that speculation doesn't come true.