Former FCC Official Attempts To Create An Aereo That The Supreme Court Won't Kill

from the quack-quack dept

If you've been following copyright issues for more than a few years, you surely remember Aereo, a company that attempted to set up a bunch of micro-TV antennas which it could then use to stream broadcast TV to paying subscribers. What was fascinating about Aereo was how it was set up in a manner that was positively insane to any technologist -- but was considered "necessary" to comply with the law, following a bunch of nonsensical copyright rulings from other companies trying to offer streaming TV. And, incredibly, its careful following of the rules was declared to be proof that it was trying to "get around" the rules.

And then, even more bizarre, the Supreme Court ruled against Aereo using no actually defined standard, but basically just saying that it looked too much like a cable service, so they'll call it a cable service (something I've referred to as the Supreme Court's "looks like a duck" doctrine). As we pointed out at the time, part of the problem with such a weird test is that it provided zero guidance to tech innovators who wanted to build a system within the law. Basically, the Supreme Court (or lower courts) can now decide that something "looks" too much like another system, and decide it's magically illegal... just because.

However, it appears that at least one operation is trying again with an Aereo-like approach. And once again, it's taken a very legally-focused approach. Perhaps that's because it's been set up by a lawyer, David Goodfriend, who formerly worked for the FCC (and in the media industry). The NY Times has a big article about his Locast operation, and how he's hoping to get sued to prove that his approach is legal, where Aereo's failed. The basic approach does sound quite like Aereo:

On the roof of a luxury building at the edge of Central Park, 585 feet above the concrete, a lawyer named David Goodfriend has attached a modest four-foot antenna that is a threat to the entire TV-industrial complex.

The device is there to soak up TV signals coursing through the air — content from NBC, ABC, Fox, PBS and CBS, including megahits like “This Is Us” and this Sunday’s broadcast of Super Bowl LIII. Once plucked from the ether, the content is piped through the internet and assembled into an app called Locast. It’s a streaming service, and it makes all of this network programming available to subscribers in ways that are more convenient than relying on a home antenna: It’s viewable on almost any device, at any time, in pristine quality that doesn’t cut in and out. It’s also completely free.

There are a couple of difference between Aereo and Locast, starting with the fact that Locast is offering its services for free. The second is that Locast is set up as a non-commercial entity, rather than a for-profit company (which also helps explain the "free" to subscribers bit). And it is true that copyright law is somewhat kinder to non-profits. But just barely. Goodfriend thinks he's on solid legal ground, though, to be fair, so did Aereo.

“We really did our homework,” he said. “We are operating under parameters that are designed to be compliant within the law.”

He also notes, correctly, that the whole point of over the air terrestrial broadcasts is that they're supposed to be available for free, to anyone with an antenna. That was kind of the whole point. On top of this, of course, courts have already said that it's perfectly legal to stream content that you capture legally via an antenna over the internet for viewing. The real difference here, as it was with Aereo, is just who technically owns the antenna.

“The American people have given you something really valuable, the airways, for free,” he said, talking about the broadcasters, his eyes popping at the word “free.” Slowing down for emphasis, he added: “So shouldn’t we get something back for free? Which is great television. That’s the social contract, right?”

The article further notes that Goodfriend -- who initially designed the idea of Locast while teaching the Aereo case to law students at Georgetown -- would "welcome a legal challenge" from the TV networks to prove that his approach is legal -- though it's unclear if the networks feel like going after him. The article quotes Aereo founder/CEO Chet Kanojia, who points out that the networks ignored Aereo until it raised a bunch of money from Barry Diller, and then suddenly it became worth it to sue. Goodfriend notes that he's currently chasing down funding deals, even approaching his own version of Barry Diller in Dish Network's Charlie Ergen (for whom Goodfriend used to work), but so far has not closed anything.

Assuming Locast actually does start to catch on (and a big story in the NY Times certainly will give it a pretty big bump), I would be surprised if the networks didn't eventually sue, and then we get to go through the Aereo debate all over again. Quack, quack, quack.

Filed Under: antennas, broadcast tv, copyright, david goodfriend, over the air, quacks like a duck, streaming, tv
Companies: aereo, locast

DailyDirt: Smaller, Better, Faster Wireless

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The term wireless is a bit strange because it classifies a whole range of modern technology by the lack of a wire. Cordless technologies are getting better all the time, but the reliability and transfer speeds of wires are still superior in many ways. Thankfully, there are plenty of folks working on making wireless equipment that is faster and smaller, pushing the capabilities of wireless transmissions to make mobile devices better and better. Here are just a few notable milestones.

• Transmitting a wireless signal at 2.5 terabits per second isn't anywhere near commonplace yet, but maybe someday wireless spectrum will have almost unlimited capacity. Networking equipment that can handle both orbital angular momentum (OAM) and spin angular momentum (SAM) modulation will have to get out of research labs first. [url]
• Antennas can be the largest component in a wireless device, but a hemispherical antenna design might approach fundamental size limits. Phones might not get any smaller, but there could be more room for batteries.... [url]
• Antennas made of thin films of graphene could allow for terabit per second data transfers over short distances. Graphene is still a tricky material to work with, but as researchers work out how to make useful electronics from graphene, there could be some amazingly small wireless devices in the future. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: antennas, graphene, spectrum, terabit, wireless

Charter Communications Refuses To Air Antenna Manufacturer's Ad

from the the-'plug-ears-and-chant-loudly'-business-model dept

There's a lot of talk about "cord cutting" going around. On one hand, the techier side of the spectrum feels this is the new normal and that it spells out the eventual demise of cable companies. On the other hand, cable companies are stating loudly that this isn't happening and displaying chart after chart of flat (or slightly declining) subscriber counts as evidence that things are still "pretty OK." In between, you have the public, which is blessed with more options for content consumption than ever before. Sure, many of them still have a cable line running to the house, but it's debatable how much of that piped-in content is being consumed via the cable box. After all, most cable providers are also ISPs, which brings content into the home via services like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu.

Cable and satellite companies have long fought against having to inform its current (and potential) customers that their services aren't needed to receive free, over-the-air TV. This is why many networks are battling antenna manufacturer Aero in court -- to protect the carriage fees they receive from cable companies. If the cable companies lose subscribers, they lose these fees. Cable companies aren't happy about these antenna manufacturers either, and are pushing back by limiting the reach of their advertising. Vidiot sends in this GigaOM story about Antennas Direct and its run-in with Charter Communications.

You don’t need a cable subscription to watch ABC, CBS or NBC – but don’t expect to learn about alternatives if you’re a Charter customer. Over-the-air antenna maker Antennas Direct recently wanted to buy some air time on Charter‘s cable channels to explain how TV viewers can access these channels without a pay TV subscription.

“We thought it was a fairly benign message,” Antennas Direct President Richard Schneider told me Thursday. Charter disagreed – and rejected the spot for competitive reasons.

While Antennas Direct may compete somewhat with Charter's core business, its purchasers are limited to free, over-the-air channels. Charter offers many channels (along with phone and internet services) unavailable over the air, along with premium offerings. Someone knocking a handful of channels out of the hundreds available shouldn't be a concern -- unless cord cutting is more a threat than these companies want to admit. Charter's refusal to air this aid is an implicit admission that cord cutting is more of a problem than it's willing to state in public. As Richard Schneider, president of Antennas Direct, points out in a blog post at the company's site: “When a multi-million dollar antenna company can strike fear into the heart of a 7 billion dollar giant, you know your message has merit.”

Along with giving people a viable reason to ditch their cable subscriptions, these antennas offer something else the cablecos can't: uncompressed HD. Ever-expanding channel lineups have run headlong into bandwidth limits, forcing cable companies to compress their HD offerings. Not that you'd know it from cable company advertisting or their channel lineups, which list dozens of HD channels, most of which are delivered in less-than-true-HD form with compression that can run anywhere from 1-40%.

So, while there's nothing wrong with Charter's actions from a business perspective, blocking a few "competitor's" ads isn't going to save it for long. After all, more and more people are getting their advertising (and other information) from a variety of screens, rather than relying on TV broadcasts. This ad shutdown does nothing for Charter and gives Antennas Direct a huge boost in publicity. Maybe it would have been smarter to just let these ads run in their "normal" environment, commercial breaks, where the message would have become background noise for fridge runs and bathroom breaks. Instead, Charter has allowed Antennas Direct to walk away with the win and spead its message to savvy internet users, most of who are more than happy to ditch services they find incomplete, limiting or unnecessarily expensive.

Filed Under: antennas, competition
Companies: antennas direct, charter communications

Some Hospitals Not Just Encouraging Mobile Phone Usage, But Installing Technology To Make It Easier

from the well-that's-nice dept

Remember how hospitals were banning mobile phones out of a fear that the signal would interfere with medical equipment? That turned out to not be much of a problem and soon doctors from around the world were clamoring for the right to use their own mobile phones. A recent study even found tremendous benefits in allowing mobile phone usage in hospitals, including better communication among staff members and lower error rates, thanks to that improved communication. The latest is that some hospitals aren't just allowing mobile phone usage, they're making it possible by installing local antennas to make it even easier for mobile phones to work. The hospitals point out that this is likely to lower the likelihood of interference, as the mobile phones don't have to broadcast as strong a signal if the "tower" is so close. Then, of course, there's the benefit of having happier patients who can more easily stay in touch with friends and family (and also making it easier for those friends and family members to visit). All in all it seems to make a lot of sense, though there are still some holdouts among hospitals that don't feel there's enough evidence to allow mobile phones into hospitals just yet.

Filed Under: antennas, hospitals, interference, mobile phones