Pub Member / Supporter
- Jul 4, 2004
The author proposes all the questions I would have about the service. They may consider themselves a "translator," but does the FCC consider them as such? I wonder what Trip thinks about it?
Hiding behind the "secondary retransmission" isn't going to save their bacon as they're not broadcasting in the sense covered by the ruling. They would also have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their "geofencing" was 100% effective and that's not possible with several VPN services offering NYC and Dallas addresses.
The dissenting SCOTUS judges were careful that the Aereo decision only applied to Aereo but a lot of the underpinnings would apply to anyone seeking to transcode to the Internet domain.
And there's nothing unlawful about that. This isn't Canada where the gubmint dictates what you can and cannot watch.Sadly, geofencing is 80-90% effective at best. That said, I can get stations from the next DMA over with a big enough antenna.
I expect that this is why some services are only available on devices that have some manner of GPS capability as that's much harder to work around.
Is there an Android TV or Roku app yet?