Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Aereo loses in 10th Circuit court


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,192 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 19 February 2014 - 10:00 PM

This currently affects Salt Lake City and Denver.

 

http://arstechnica.c...tworks-in-utah/



...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#2 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 17,389 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 20 February 2014 - 01:30 PM

Well that sounds like someone who is trying to protect stations from chargeing for something they agree to give to people for free when they got all the bandwidth for free.

#3 OFFLINE   lparsons21

lparsons21

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 3,648 posts
  • LocationHerrin, IL
Joined: Mar 04, 2006

Posted 20 February 2014 - 01:45 PM

The title of the news on the home page is incorrect.  They haven't lost at all since it hasn't been tried.


  • Reaper likes this

Lloyd
Receiver/Provider: Tivo Roamio Plus/Mediacom
HDTV : Mitsi WD-73742 73" 3D DLP
Surround: Denon AVR-2113ci 7.1 Setup

 


#4 OFFLINE   nmetro

nmetro

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 724 posts
Joined: Jul 11, 2006

Posted 20 February 2014 - 01:51 PM

The Salt Lake City CBS affiliate is owned by Sinclair; and the FOX affiliate is owned by Tribune. The CBS affiliate was once owned by CBS proper.

 

OK, Aereo's model, when you read their web site, can be interpreted that they are taking over the air signals, and passing them along. One's "antenna" is dedicated IP address fro their stream over IP service. The "DVR" is stored at their data center. This is not the same as taking an antenna, putting it on one's roof and capturing signals. In a way, Aereo operates like the olden days of Cable TV. In its humble beginning, cable TV took over the air signals and ran it to people's homes, because distance from broadcast towers, and natural obstructions, prevents a reliable signal.

 

It is interesting that Aereo did win in three other other appeals courts. Though, the 10th district is a very conservative court. As is the state, for which this case was heard.

 

As this will end up in the Supreme Court, it could prove interesting; if they find for Aereo. CBS and FOX have threatened to go way from over the air and only run their contents as pay networks. NBC and ABC, have made similar threats. Honestly, what these networks air would I not consider paying extra for, beyond what I am forced to pay to get locals on DirectTV. Of course, in Denver, I get over 15 channels as locals. But, CBS or FOX for $5/month; I do not think so.

 

This is a classic case where our do nothing Congress needs to do something. Local station are provided public frequencies to broadcast. While they own the copyright, on programming, they do not own the frequencies they broadcast on. Be it over the air, on cable or on satellite; the US Government (NIST and FCC)  determine teh standards and the frequencies; and, how they are allocated and used.



#5 OFFLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,192 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 20 February 2014 - 02:26 PM

The title of the news on the home page is incorrect.  They haven't lost at all since it hasn't been tried.

 

I should have read the decision. The judge ruled against Aereo but stayed the decision pending the Supreme Court.



#6 OFFLINE   Reaper

Reaper

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 566 posts
Joined: Jul 30, 2008

Posted 20 February 2014 - 05:35 PM

The title of the news on the home page is incorrect.  They haven't lost at all since it hasn't been tried.

 

+1



#7 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,230 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 20 February 2014 - 10:55 PM

They lost ... they just do not have to pay the penalty (follow the injunction prohibiting them from operating) due to the judge taking in to consideration the pending Supreme Court case.

A win for Aereo would be for the judge not to issue the injunction. The judge is clearly saying what Aereo is doing is wrong and they should not be in business.
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#8 OFFLINE   gully_foyle

gully_foyle

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,297 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles
Joined: Jan 17, 2007

Posted 21 February 2014 - 02:39 AM

Copyright went off the rails the moment they started extending existing copyrights, to keep works out of the public domain.  At that point who was stealing from whom became unclear..


Edited by gully_foyle, 21 February 2014 - 02:39 AM.

DirecTV since 1994 // 2014Q2 Setup here

#9 OFFLINE   lparsons21

lparsons21

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 3,648 posts
  • LocationHerrin, IL
Joined: Mar 04, 2006

Posted 21 February 2014 - 07:39 AM

They lost ... they just do not have to pay the penalty (follow the injunction prohibiting them from operating) due to the judge taking in to consideration the pending Supreme Court case.

A win for Aereo would be for the judge not to issue the injunction. The judge is clearly saying what Aereo is doing is wrong and they should not be in business.

 

Not true James.  No more than the failure in other appeals courts to get an injunction was a 'win'.


Lloyd
Receiver/Provider: Tivo Roamio Plus/Mediacom
HDTV : Mitsi WD-73742 73" 3D DLP
Surround: Denon AVR-2113ci 7.1 Setup

 


#10 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,230 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 22 February 2014 - 12:59 AM

Not true James.  No more than the failure in other appeals courts to get an injunction was a 'win'.


That is the point. Some people seem to dance in the streets when an injunction is not issued as if the case is over and the defendant has won. The decision not it issue an injunction is positive, but is not a final victory.

Having an injunction enforced is a serious loss as the defendant must cease operations (and potentially lose money) until the case is finished. If the defendant ends up winning they may end up getting some compensation from the plaintiff but being out of business hurts their growth. Injunctions may go unenforced if the plaintiff is unwilling to post a bond to cover the possibility that they would lose and owe the defendant for those loses. A stayed injunction keeps the defendant in business ... potentially building up further damages that would need to be paid to the plaintiff if they eventually lose.

The difference here is what happens after the Supreme Court decision. If the Supreme Court sides with Aereo business continues ... but if the Supreme Court goes against Aereo they will send the decision back to the lower courts to handle. In the other districts the lower courts will have to revisit the decisions and injunctions - in the 10th there is an injunction ready to be put in to effect.
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#11 OFFLINE   Athlon646464

Athlon646464

    Hall Of Fame

  • News Hound
  • 3,045 posts
  • LocationUxbridge, MA
Joined: Feb 23, 2007

Posted 26 February 2014 - 11:17 AM

Update: Aereo wins a grace period from injunction, keeps Denver and Salt Lake City open
 
Some broadcasters might have recently scored a victory against Aereo in court, but they can't party just yet. The startup just got a 14-day grace period from a six-state preliminary injunction (it has won its share of court battles, and this is considered its biggest legal setback thus far) handed down last week. That means the over-the-air TV service can continue any expansion plans in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming... at least for a while. 
 
 
aereony.jpg
Engadget

1 HR34-700, 1 C31-700, 1 C41W-100, 1 WVBR0-01, 1 HR24-500

Original install on Apr. 20, 2008 - C41W & WVB self installed on Dec. 27, 2014 - HR34 & C31 installed on Aug. 24, 2013 - HR24 installed on July 23, 2010

Press any key to continue, or any other key to cancel.


#12 OFFLINE   Athlon646464

Athlon646464

    Hall Of Fame

  • News Hound
  • 3,045 posts
  • LocationUxbridge, MA
Joined: Feb 23, 2007

Posted 05 March 2014 - 07:51 AM

Update: Department of Justice comes out against Aereo's TV streaming in Supreme Court case
 
It's never a good idea to make an enemy of the federal government, and it appears that Aereo now finds itself in just that predicament. On Monday, the US Department of Justice came out in favor of the broadcasters that oppose Aereo in a case currently before the US Supreme Court. 
 
 
aereo-620.jpg

1 HR34-700, 1 C31-700, 1 C41W-100, 1 WVBR0-01, 1 HR24-500

Original install on Apr. 20, 2008 - C41W & WVB self installed on Dec. 27, 2014 - HR34 & C31 installed on Aug. 24, 2013 - HR24 installed on July 23, 2010

Press any key to continue, or any other key to cancel.


#13 OFFLINE   Athlon646464

Athlon646464

    Hall Of Fame

  • News Hound
  • 3,045 posts
  • LocationUxbridge, MA
Joined: Feb 23, 2007

Posted 03 April 2014 - 10:01 AM

Update: Aereo Attracts Support From Dish Network, EFF & More For SCOTUS Hearing
 
With less than three weeks before Aereo argues its case in front of the Supreme Court, amicus briefs today supporting the subscription streaming service in its battle against the broadcasters were being filed fast and furiously. Supporters of the Barry Diller-backed company have until 11:59 PM ET to add their voices to the cause.
 
On the plaintiff’s side, SAG-AFTRA, Viacom, Time Warner and Warner Bros Entertainment, the NFL and MLB are among those who have come out against Aereo. 
 
Today’s briefs from Dish Network, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Cable Association and more come less than a week after Aereo firmly responded to the broadcaster’s February 24 brief and the same day Diller said that Aereo could be “finished” if it loses before the SCOTUS....
 
 
supremecourt__121107013841.jpg

1 HR34-700, 1 C31-700, 1 C41W-100, 1 WVBR0-01, 1 HR24-500

Original install on Apr. 20, 2008 - C41W & WVB self installed on Dec. 27, 2014 - HR34 & C31 installed on Aug. 24, 2013 - HR24 installed on July 23, 2010

Press any key to continue, or any other key to cancel.


#14 OFFLINE   nmetro

nmetro

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 724 posts
Joined: Jul 11, 2006

Posted 03 April 2014 - 12:41 PM

Knowing the makeup of the Supreme Court, chances are they will find against Aereo. Too bad, because they have a nice concept. One really does get a mini-antenna which picks up signals for each customer. But, for some reason, the courts think Aereo is nothing more than Cable TV, except it is over the internet. Never mind that all its doing it setting up an antenna, and IP address, and cloud storage. No different than any streaming site, except the antenna part.

 

Big corporate oligarchs are trying to quash Aereo, because if allowed to operate, it would put an end to the billions of dollars they rob subscribers for transmission consent. Again, it is not what Aereo is doing, it is about the money the CEOs and stock holders want in their pockets.

 

I was just about to sign up, so I could get the sub channels that DirecTV does not carry, but Denver signup was blocked right before I could do it.

 

Another case where ignorance of technology meets the legal system.



#15 OFFLINE   KyL416

KyL416

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 2,678 posts
  • LocationTobyhanna, PA
Joined: Nov 10, 2005

Posted 03 April 2014 - 03:42 PM

One really does get a mini-antenna which picks up signals for each customer.

Let's not start this argument again. Just read the posts in the other Aereo thread. Antennas that close are not functioning alone because of wavelengths. And others have basically reversed engineered their system to debunk the one antenna and channel per subscriber claim. (Shared streaming servers, the delay to "prep" an antenna is a fake javascript delay, the ability to watch multiple channels at the same time and instantly by changing the publishing point on the url, the so called live DVR feature is something built into the open source media player, a player used by other sites like BBC and RTE for their live streams, and works with any HDS stream, etc)

But, for some reason, the courts think Aereo is nothing more than Cable TV, except it is over the internet.

That's exactly what Cable TV was in the beginning, Community Antenna Television, the difference is they are not getting permission from the networks first. And Aereo made themselves look more like a MSO than a community antenna service when they started offering Bloomberg, a non OTA channel as part of their service.

No different than any streaming site, except the antenna part.

Unless you're going to a site with a bunch of unofficial streams, ANY streaming site needs consent from the rights holder of the programming. Whether it's the network, studio, producer or sports league. In this case even the networks don't have the rights to stream everything online to all platforms. (i.e. the NFL made an exclusive deal with Verizon for mobile rights, so WatchESPN and the live WatchABC streams for ABC affiliates that carry Monday Night and Thursday Night football games locally like WPVI cannot show them on cell phones, Fox Sports's live stream of the Super Bowl was limited to tablets and computers, until ESPN made their new deal with MLB at the end of 2012 they had to blur the screen anytime MLB highlights appeared on SportsCenter)


This ruling will decide if using the internet as the last mile of delivery exempts them from any regulations that apply to MSOs (i.e. must carry/retransmission consent, EAS, Descriptive Video, Closed captioning), and pretty much create a loophole bypassing any exclusive contracts sports leagues have for over the top distribution.

Edited by KyL416, 03 April 2014 - 04:40 PM.


#16 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,042 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 04 April 2014 - 09:35 AM

Knowing the makeup of the Supreme Court, chances are they will find against Aereo. Too bad, because they have a nice concept. One really does get a mini-antenna which picks up signals for each customer. But, for some reason, the courts think Aereo is nothing more than Cable TV, except it is over the internet. Never mind that all its doing it setting up an antenna, and IP address, and cloud storage. No different than any streaming site, except the antenna part.

 

Big corporate oligarchs are trying to quash Aereo, because if allowed to operate, it would put an end to the billions of dollars they rob subscribers for transmission consent. Again, it is not what Aereo is doing, it is about the money the CEOs and stock holders want in their pockets.

 

I was just about to sign up, so I could get the sub channels that DirecTV does not carry, but Denver signup was blocked right before I could do it.

 

Another case where ignorance of technology meets the legal system.

 

Uhm, actually the individual antenna is not doing that.  This is part of the problem.  Its an array, not a dedicated antenna for each customer.

 

The bigger issue, however, is that they don't have the consent or right to do what they are doing.  Cable asked that permission, negotiated it, etc.  Aereo decided to skip that little part.


Edited by Satelliteracer, 04 April 2014 - 09:37 AM.

DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#17 OFFLINE   Stuart Sweet

Stuart Sweet

    The Shadow Knows!

  • Super Moderators
  • 36,988 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2006

Posted 04 April 2014 - 10:55 AM

Well said, Mr. Racer. But as I've said before in other forums, the matter of what Aereo is doing and whether it's fair is not really at issue. The issue is that the FCC is failing to act to close a loophole that Aereo has the legal right to exploit. All they would have to do would be issue a rule change that said that operating an array of individual antennas for the purpose of offering a paid service that provides television programming is tantamount to retransmission. They could even use those exact words.

I'm not sure if it would require congressional approval, but the fact that the FCC hasn't even tried to address this at all, relying instead on legal challenges to shape the argument, says a lot about them
Opinions expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of DBSTalk.com, DIRECTV, DISH, The Signal Group, or any other company.

#18 OFFLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,192 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 04 April 2014 - 10:56 AM

Right, and Aereo is charging for the service and operating as a for profit business. Big difference from free OTA with a home antenna.



#19 OFFLINE   Nick

Nick

    Keep going - don't give up!

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 21,413 posts
  • LocationThe Beautiful Golden Isles of Georgia
Joined: Apr 23, 2002

Posted 04 April 2014 - 12:26 PM

Whether I choose to receive a broadcaster's signal over the public airwaves (free-to-air) or through an intermediary

such as CCTV, commercial cable or a pay internet service like Aereo should be my choice. A book, once paid for,

can be read by many people. A song can be heard by more than a single person. Why should a tv broadcaster be

able to charge multiple times for the same content?

 

I hope Aereo is successful based solely on principal.


.


~ 13 Years on DBSTalk ~
Charter Gold Club Member
DBSTalk Club ~ 21k Club
Top 10 Poster

.


#20 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,230 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 04 April 2014 - 05:15 PM

The issue is that the FCC is failing to act to close a loophole that Aereo has the legal right to exploit. All they would have to do would be issue a rule change that said that operating an array of individual antennas for the purpose of offering a paid service that provides television programming is tantamount to retransmission. They could even use those exact words.


Personally I don't see a loophole where Aereo operates ... I see the deliberate redefining of terms. Retransmission is retransmission whether they have one antenna or a million. The concept of retransmission needs to be honored in the decision.

If The FCC has to adjusts definitions for Aereo then the next Aereo will simply work one step outside of that line. But if the concept of "what is retransmission" is upheld there is no line to move.
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#21 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,042 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 04 April 2014 - 07:27 PM

Whether I choose to receive a broadcaster's signal over the public airwaves (free-to-air) or through an intermediary

such as CCTV, commercial cable or a pay internet service like Aereo should be my choice. A book, once paid for,

can be read by many people. A song can be heard by more than a single person. Why should a tv broadcaster be

able to charge multiple times for the same content?

 

I hope Aereo is successful based solely on principal.

 

Don't forget, as recently as two years ago the Supreme Court was ruling whether you could resell a book.  Something called the "first sale" doctrine is the law which governs this activity. 

 

Not sure in your example how the programming is one paid for, however.  If Aereo was offering this at no charge, just like an OTA, I don't think you would have the networks upset.  Simple reason is they are getting retrans fees right now from cable, telco and satellite providers.  They don't receive any from someone that has an OTA.  Once you start charging for their created content, they're going to perk up and take notice.


DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#22 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,230 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 04 April 2014 - 09:29 PM

Don't forget, as recently as two years ago the Supreme Court was ruling whether you could resell a book.  Something called the "first sale" doctrine is the law which governs this activity.


The first sale doctrine allows a person or company who legally obtains a copyrighted work to sell or dispose of that property in any way they see fit. Buy a legal copy of a textbook in Thailand, import it to the US and sell it and the Supreme Court will allow you to do so (according to a case decided in March 2013). But that book is a physical object.

The logic gets more complicated when it comes to digital material.

Under copyright law selling or disposing of the property in any way they see fit does not include making copies. If I legally buy a copy of a song on iTunes can I legally sell it by converting it to a WAV format and then deleting the song from my iTunes? Can I burn the song to a CD ROM as a collection as long as I legally obtain each original copy and delete the originals after the burn? The transcoding process is making a copy.

And that is where Aereo hits a problem. Assume they were a small company using a single antenna, single tuner and had one customer. One could argue that they legally obtained the programming of a local TV station over the air on their single antenna and single tuner, and the copy they sold their one customer was transferred to the customer - the original programming was not kept. They are in the business of making copies of TV broadcasts - and whether those broadcasts are delivered seconds after reception or stored on a server until viewed (and potentially viewed again) what they offer to their customers is NOT the original program. It is a copy. And the copy cannot be transferred without the permission of the rights holder.

Multiply one into the thousands of antennas (acting as an array, whether intentional or not), thousands of tuners, thousands of recording devices and thousands of customers and it gets a lot harder to say that they are not operating just like a cable or satellite system that receives, transcodes and delivers programs to customers for a price. Which should place them under cable and satellite's rules for rebroadcasting copyrighted content.

Theoretically DirecTV receives each local TV station, transcodes it and uplinks it ONCE to a satellite system. If there is a SD and HD feed they would uplink it twice. DISH has locals that are uplinked to both of their arcs and could be uplinked three times (HD east arc, HD west arc, SD west arc). But for the sake of argument, lets look at a station that is only uplinked once. Is DirecTV making a copy of that feed? They are receiving one signal and transmitting one signal - should it matter how many people can receive that one signal?

Such twisted logic would make it possible for DirecTV to sell their legally obtained OTA signal however they wanted without violating copyright law (Theory: DirecTV isn't making a copy - they are just transcoding the signal once). DISH could put up three antennas and three tuners and transcode the feeds separately for each arc through twisted logic. Cable systems could convert one signal to QAM or pass through the ATSC frequency shifted and not be making a copy under such logic.

The twisted logic fails because what DirecTV, DISH and cable does is considered re-broadcasting. It would be considered rebroadcasting even if they only had one customer. And that is the way it should apply to Aereo.
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#23 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,722 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 05 April 2014 - 07:21 AM

Interesting to speculate what we'd have now if the FCC had ruled that re-broadcasting was just fine, and no rights accrued to the original broadcaster. Well, it could have happened!


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#24 OFFLINE   kenglish

kenglish

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 973 posts
  • LocationSalt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: Oct 02, 2004

Posted 05 April 2014 - 09:19 AM

Interesting to speculate what we'd have now if the FCC had ruled that re-broadcasting was just fine, and no rights accrued to the original broadcaster. Well, it could have happened!

 

It would just mean that your local stations would all be home shopping channels, and there would be no news, no local production and no one to answer the phone when you call them. Think "Mega-Corp radio".....



#25 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,722 posts
  • LocationWinters, CA, between Napa and Sacramento
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 05 April 2014 - 06:53 PM

It would just mean that your local stations would all be home shopping channels, and there would be no news, no local production and no one to answer the phone when you call them. Think "Mega-Corp radio".....

No. 

Stations would be selling ads as they do now, counting noses of OTA and subscription services, as they do now. They just wouldn't have the direct revenue from sat and cable companies.

 

I am more interested in other facets of that hypothetical. 


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...