Aereo Halts Service After Supreme Court Loss to Broadcasters
Streaming-video startup Aereo Inc. has focused its attention entirely on regrouping after being dealt a potentially fatal blow last week when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it violates broadcasters’ copyrights.
Aereo temporarily shut down its service Saturday, marking the end for now of the $8-a-month solution for cord cutters in 11 cities who used it to watch live and recorded TV from broadcasters like CBS and ABC.
“We have decided to pause our operations temporarily as we consult with the court and map out our next steps,” Chief Executive Officer Chet Kanojia said in a blog post over the weekend.
The hiatus follows a ruling from the Supreme Court, which said Aereo broadcasters’ copyrights by selling programming online without paying licensing fees. Broadcasters said Aereo, which is backed by billionaire media mogul Barry Diller, threatened to create a blueprint that would let cable and satellite providers stop paying billions of dollars in retransmission fees each year to carry local programming.
The Supreme Court rejected Aereo’s contention that its use of thousands of dime-sized antennas -- each sending programming to a single customer -- meant the transmissions on its system were “private” ones. The court said Aereo should be viewed as a cable provider because of the “many similarities.”
Officially, the startup’s legal status hasn’t changed yet. Under the Supreme Court’s standard practice, the justices won’t return the case to the lower courts for another month.
Continue Fighting
Kanojia had said Aereo’s work is “far from done” after the ruling. He hasn’t specified how the company would move forward.
“The spectrum that the broadcasters use to transmit over the air programming belongs to the American public,” he said in the blog post on June 28. “You should have a right to access that live programming whether your antenna sits on the roof of your home, on top of your television or in the cloud.”
With Aereo having gone dark, cord cutters who want to ditch their cable service and still watch broadcast TV on a computer or tablet do have options -- though they can be more expensive and cumbersome.
Companies such as Roku Inc. offer alternatives to paying for a cable subscription, though require customers to buy hardware that can cost hundreds of dollars and limit users’ ability to watch live broadcast programming. For that, customers must purchase another device from Really Simple Software Inc.’s Simple.TV, which can cost as much as $350.
Other video-streaming services, including those from Netflix Inc. and Hulu LLC, don’t offer the live-programming options that Aereo did.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/aereo-halts-...z367yjETLn
................can't overstate the impact of Governments regulations. Contrast the above w/speed bumps in Africa
MTN quietly scores controversial spectrum
Icasa has issued MTN with spectrum despite opposition from rivals
The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) has issued MTN with a radio spectrum license to use the frequencies in the 2,010–2,015MHz band, a spokesperson for the regulator said.
MTN intends to use the spectrum for its “non-line-of-sight small-cell backhaul solution,” said Icasa.
Icasa was responding to a question MyBroadband put to it after hearing rumours that MTN had received the spectrum it applied for during 2013.
Its application resulted in public hearings on 19 August 2013, where Vodacom, Cell C, Neotel, and Smile Communications all registered objections to MTN receiving the spectrum.
MTN’s local rivals indicated at the time that it would put them at a disadvantage, with Cell C going so far as to say that the application was “surprising” and “procedurally irregular”.
Smile Communications told Icasa in its objection at the hearing last year that it had been waiting since 2009 for the regulator to process its own spectrum application.
Icasa’s spokesperson said that these objections were taken into account with all other submissions regarding the spectrum, adding that it should be noted that no-one else applied for this part of the spectrum.
“The first-come, first-served criteria was used,” Icasa said. “It should be noted that Vodacom was also assigned 5MHz in the same band on receipt of their application.”
Icasa was satisfied that the correct process was followed.
Asked about the lack of public notice, the spokesperson said this was not a license amendment, adding that Icasa does not publish radio frequency licence amendments in the Government Gazette.
“This was an additional licence for backhaul which operators apply for from time to time,” Icasa said.
MTN was asked about its plans for the new spectrum, but had not answered at the time of publication.
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/105013...ctrum.html
......Telcom/CELL/Vodacom/MTN/....Smile Communications
Guess you get the pic........who wins, who loses.......We Wait
Streaming-video startup Aereo Inc. has focused its attention entirely on regrouping after being dealt a potentially fatal blow last week when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it violates broadcasters’ copyrights.
Aereo temporarily shut down its service Saturday, marking the end for now of the $8-a-month solution for cord cutters in 11 cities who used it to watch live and recorded TV from broadcasters like CBS and ABC.
“We have decided to pause our operations temporarily as we consult with the court and map out our next steps,” Chief Executive Officer Chet Kanojia said in a blog post over the weekend.
The hiatus follows a ruling from the Supreme Court, which said Aereo broadcasters’ copyrights by selling programming online without paying licensing fees. Broadcasters said Aereo, which is backed by billionaire media mogul Barry Diller, threatened to create a blueprint that would let cable and satellite providers stop paying billions of dollars in retransmission fees each year to carry local programming.
The Supreme Court rejected Aereo’s contention that its use of thousands of dime-sized antennas -- each sending programming to a single customer -- meant the transmissions on its system were “private” ones. The court said Aereo should be viewed as a cable provider because of the “many similarities.”
Officially, the startup’s legal status hasn’t changed yet. Under the Supreme Court’s standard practice, the justices won’t return the case to the lower courts for another month.
Continue Fighting
Kanojia had said Aereo’s work is “far from done” after the ruling. He hasn’t specified how the company would move forward.
“The spectrum that the broadcasters use to transmit over the air programming belongs to the American public,” he said in the blog post on June 28. “You should have a right to access that live programming whether your antenna sits on the roof of your home, on top of your television or in the cloud.”
With Aereo having gone dark, cord cutters who want to ditch their cable service and still watch broadcast TV on a computer or tablet do have options -- though they can be more expensive and cumbersome.
Companies such as Roku Inc. offer alternatives to paying for a cable subscription, though require customers to buy hardware that can cost hundreds of dollars and limit users’ ability to watch live broadcast programming. For that, customers must purchase another device from Really Simple Software Inc.’s Simple.TV, which can cost as much as $350.
Other video-streaming services, including those from Netflix Inc. and Hulu LLC, don’t offer the live-programming options that Aereo did.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/aereo-halts-...z367yjETLn
................can't overstate the impact of Governments regulations. Contrast the above w/speed bumps in Africa
MTN quietly scores controversial spectrum
Icasa has issued MTN with spectrum despite opposition from rivals
The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) has issued MTN with a radio spectrum license to use the frequencies in the 2,010–2,015MHz band, a spokesperson for the regulator said.
MTN intends to use the spectrum for its “non-line-of-sight small-cell backhaul solution,” said Icasa.
Icasa was responding to a question MyBroadband put to it after hearing rumours that MTN had received the spectrum it applied for during 2013.
Its application resulted in public hearings on 19 August 2013, where Vodacom, Cell C, Neotel, and Smile Communications all registered objections to MTN receiving the spectrum.
MTN’s local rivals indicated at the time that it would put them at a disadvantage, with Cell C going so far as to say that the application was “surprising” and “procedurally irregular”.
Smile Communications told Icasa in its objection at the hearing last year that it had been waiting since 2009 for the regulator to process its own spectrum application.
Icasa’s spokesperson said that these objections were taken into account with all other submissions regarding the spectrum, adding that it should be noted that no-one else applied for this part of the spectrum.
“The first-come, first-served criteria was used,” Icasa said. “It should be noted that Vodacom was also assigned 5MHz in the same band on receipt of their application.”
Icasa was satisfied that the correct process was followed.
Asked about the lack of public notice, the spokesperson said this was not a license amendment, adding that Icasa does not publish radio frequency licence amendments in the Government Gazette.
“This was an additional licence for backhaul which operators apply for from time to time,” Icasa said.
MTN was asked about its plans for the new spectrum, but had not answered at the time of publication.
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/cellular/105013...ctrum.html
......Telcom/CELL/Vodacom/MTN/....Smile Communications
Guess you get the pic........who wins, who loses.......We Wait
