is a recognition that is going among judges and state legislators, not uniformally, b the rights and remedies are out there. and people that don't speak our language or seem to be the same as us, people are understanding that immigrants are important people in this country and the rights of the immigrants should be the same as everybody in america. thank you. >> thank you. i think that is a great note on which to end. great. wonderful. thank you all so much for being here and an applause for such an exceptional panel. [ applause ] >> up next on the communicators, the talk about the use of

broadcast over the internet and a look at slavery and emancipation in u.s. history. >> c-span bought to you as a local service by your local cable or satellite provider.

if you start with acknowledging everybody has a right to an anna tena and everybody acknowledges there is nothing wrong with an antenna and a dvr. the debate is about where the equipment is located because no one appealed the finding of acts. each individual consumer makes their own copy and none of those facts have been appealed or disputed every. it comes down to we are as the country and as society and

system -- do we perlite permit this idea of conduct? the courts found we do. and congress has been encouraging the consumption of local broadcast television. so the idea that a new way of capturing this signal by an individual should be prohibited is an incorrect policy and a devastating blow to invasion in the next step of the industry which is removing the technology from the home and into the cloud. these are simple and logical and grounded and sound policy and progress was arguments. it is more nuance than that as well. the idea that broadcasters have gotten the spectrum for free

from the government/people and the bargain was programming influence free to the consumer and they make billions of billions with advertising. none of this is affected in this particular scenario. the idea that they are entitled to compensation from people that make the equipment there is there is no basis in law for that argument to be made. it is a pure business model appeal. not legality. >> exactly how does aereo work? >> guest: aereo created two interesting technologies. one is the remote micro antenna and since they are based in the

cloud we need to make sure they are small. and second is high density and high capacity dvr in the cloud. the way the technology works is there is a connection with the dvr and the consumer has a simple interface that says log in, establish you are eligible to watch broadcast tv and the reason is you live in the city and you could have set-up another antenna if you will. and once the process is done, the consumer presents an electronic guide and says i want to watch the today show. it is only applied to broadcast. and then the signal is sent to their antenna, the signal goes through the dvr because most

modern consumers expect the ability to pause. and they can watch it on tablet, smart tv, box like roku and apple. they just need quality internet and don't need to pay for cable. it isn't for everybody but it fits a good number of people's lifestyle very well >> and you charge $8-$12 for this antenna. >> $8-$10. you can have one antenna or you can have two to watch and record different channels at the same time for $12. >> the national association of broadcasters say aereo isn't a tech nilogical invasion but a

flawed approach designed to skew the law. >> i cannot describe on how many levels that is wrong. let me start at the beginning of this. the question is why are we doing it. i think that is legit. the reason is inherently cons e consumer expectation is they don't like to buy boxes. they like to by things that do lots of things. if you went to see the retail box people would laugh at you. but they are expensive because we have to troll the truck and do complicated things. so the idea of doing this in the cloud is generally accepted as good, clean progressive thinking

both from the consumer and investor and technical. and you have to bring the practicality into the this. the internet doesn't have sufficient level to pump 50-70 because each channel is 19 giga b bits a second. and for people's benefits there is no broadcast capability on the internet. so you have to move the ability to tune away from the house into the cloud because what that allows you to do is allow the consumer to get a single stream down to the house. once you move the tuning ability away from the house and put it in the cloud you are putting an antenna in the cloud and there

is not a lot of magic. it simplifys life. you start there and that hopefully gives people a picture of my the technologies are connected this way. you either accept that migration to the internet is inevitable and you do you are the architecture to exist and if you don't admit that than the cable model makes sense. the spectrum is a precious resource. for them to argue they nide to continue what they are doing, our technology can pass any frequency band. the idea we can operate this in such a channel-path world with multi interferences.

i challenge anyone to find a reliable signal like ours. it is more rational to free up those parts of the spectrum and move to lower frequency bands because aereo will pick it up and you can use 5-7 mega hertz for data bands which is as we know extremly important for the cell technologies. it has no basis in engineering. it is bunch of people tied to making money they are and they think there is a constitutionality that is revocable. and i will sensitive to this because the internet is happening to all of us.

the internet is happening to everybody. the reaction to that can't be mischaracterizational and slander. it should be protective business models. >> host: joining the conversation gautham nagesh. >> can you explain why it is possible to pay retransmission fees but your company should be able to connect to the internet and not provide compensation back. >> we don't sell the content. we lease technology to consumers. we don't retransmit, the consumer gets the signal and acquires it itself.

that is the different between the broadcast band. aereo's case is a classic case of consumer antenna with a pickup device. it is just a technilogical difference and you have to move beyond characterization to look at the significant differences between the two. and as a matter of policy, cable companies don't make copyright payments. after the '76 act, it took a decade or later for congress to device retransmission must care carry. that was because cable companies were market-balanced laws and have nothing to do with copyright. your question suggests there

should be a way to bring in copy right regimes. it is unprecedented. congress has never wanted to do that. there was a move to levy the tapes of vcr's. it is congress's content and constitutional sound for equipment providers to increase distribution by enabling technology that does that and that is what we are enabling. >> why can't i buy an aereo antenna and attach it to my tablet. i believe they are small. why must a rent one and pay a service fee to you? >> guest: because there is no restriction on the business models. there are plenty of antennas you can buy for your i-phone or

whatever port on your device. absolutely that exist. this debate about how long the wire is doesn't make sense. we are integrating the technology with dvr and cusing the power and bandwith. we are taking care of all of the those things. you no longer have to maintain that as a consumer. >> the broadcasters contend it isn't the antenna but the service you offer. the question is you are leasing the antenna to the consumers and let's say you have the super bowl and are you recording a 10010 100,000 copies of super bowl and each one is accessible by the

consumer? >> guest: absolutely. broad c broadcasters are contending the idea of individual performance is incorrect. they are contending the idea of private performances doesn't exist because they say you should look at the totality but by that measure it doesn't matter what business model you are in. everything is a public performance because you, i am sure you lis to know a stevie nicks song and somehow to sit back and reaggruivate that stuff to be public form -- that was never the business congress. the ideal conduct has been permitted. that is not what they are

asking. they are proposing that the individual transmissions are supposed to be reaggriivated because they don't like the business. if you draw the line and said today 60 million people use an antenna and they are all making transitions to people's tv. unless you come out with the idea that the idea for an individual antenna that is not p permissable i don't see the problem. >> do the aereo's get interferen interferences. >> depends on what you are talking about. >> does the picture flicker like with the weather and such? >> yes. absolutely. >> it is like the rabbit ears on

the television? >> yes. if the associated electronic fails your screen is black and the neighbor is fine skwchlt and the system defects that and says i will give you another one. >> leading up to the supreme court case there seems to be a public campaign by your company to get this word out. who are you focus on with protectmyantena.org? >> i think it is probably fair to say that the amount of questions we get inbound by consumers and policy folks and too many lawyers obviously. also lawmakers and staff around

materials. what are the real issues? can you sends us briefs and educate us on the issues. it is easy for all of us to say it is just about aereo but it isn't. what the source of the individual means applies to every company in the business of providing business from a distant server. a lot of folks filled briefs on our behalf and asked for information on content including consumers. i cannot tell you how many emails good i get that tell me money about the stories they save and why and where where can

they sign the petition that this is a good product and makes sense for their family or lifestyle. it is really an effort to educate people and have a central deposit for information. berry's article was good and we were shocked at the administration's position. it wasn't the fcc, the commerce, or the state department. it wasn't anybody but the copyright office who is tasked to lobby about copyright. but none of the other interests, like the fcc, are responsible for consumer competition and making sure the public airways were used as they intended.

it left people with the impressi impression the government is against them. and that is not true. there are ways where the agenda lies with within the sensibility and the mission of our company. >> host: another branch of the government that is involved in this is congress and their intent by the laws that have been passed. and in the brief followed by the broadcasting companying they write the view of broadcast doesn't render third parties free. they build models out of facilitating the public's access to copyrighted content. >> none of these people watch television because sony built up a business making money off other people's content.

the law isn't trapped. the intent is there is a difference between cable companies and that is not how i operate. >> host: why not pay retransmission fees to the broadcasters? >> why would we pay when no other manufacturer does. cable companies pay them because they are monopolies. if you give me a monopoly on something, maybe there is an

alternative for that. we are for people that can't afford, or don't want satellite or cable. it is a growing number. you raise 7% by and you end up with the point where the shrinking population can afford your product. >> would aereo be threatened if the stations offered intcontent over the internet? >> i thrive on the idea of competing in a market place which is being educated more and more and being marketed to more and more and not one guy carrying everybody's water. if the broadcaster said we will allow you to watch the product online without the cable bundle i will say that is what should happen because that is what they are designed and their ambition

should be and obligation should be. if they say you can watch the product online but only if you way for cable, which is the current philosophy, what is the difference between that and today? >> host: what if they charge per show? >> guest: great. consumers get more choice and the best experience, technology, best customer care wins and i am happy to be in that market place. >> so we have the supreme court court case. what, of course, i am sure you are confidant, but what did you believe the odds are the supreme court will find that aereo is p

perm perm permisable. >> guest: i don't think we should speculate. it is very dangerous to do that because you will get wrapped around the axle. you can prepare really well. i think the law is establishing precedent for us and there is policy that supports our position. there are massive implications if we are not supported. and in the other side isn't in danger. this saying that the world is going to end if aereo continues to be on its way, which is reflective in the executive's commonitary that says we have

had best model and we are locked in ten years. i like our fact and our alignment with the correctness of the consumer. after that, that is the best you can do. after that it is in the hands of them. but i am confidant we have smart and just people and hopefully they say our perspective. >> gordon smith said the recourse would be to go to congress and ask congress to prohibit aereo service. the broadcasters do have a bit of influence in washington. is that a possibility that would concern you? >> i think the standard playbook is litigate and if you fail legislate and if you fail to legislate figure out a good business model. i am expecting the playbook will be played out like that. >> and how have your

converitations gone with people on the hill? i know there was a bill that would allow for services like aereo to continue. do you find that viewpoint has found traction? >> guest: our goal is to educate lawmakers around what we are doing. but what i do find and find universely is when people look at the product people say this is so good. i get it. when are you in washington, d.c.? and i have to tell them not yet unfortunately. theft all across the board. a good number of them don't have cable. they don't make enough to have cable or don't want it. they are busy people doing all of these things. it resinates very much, though. we don't have -- i don't know what comcast spends in lobbying but my assumption or re

recollectirec recollection is it is a big number. we don't have that. and that is not our strategy. we believe if we apeople -- appeal to a base of consumers -- they will support us. and i believe in an appetite of encouraging things. >> host: how did we get to the supreme court with this? >> guest: we didn't. >> host: formal sense. >> guest: i suppose they wanted to have the highest court review and we in an unconventional mode agreed because of our believes and as a business this is an infrastructure company that

acquires a substantial amount of revenue. we are trying to figure it out from a consumer's perspective and that requires a lot to deal with that. it made sense that if you believe in what you are doing and others validate that, including the only appellate court that has spoken on the issue, you accelbrate your business not for yourself, but so talent and investment gets lined up. >> host: gautham nagesh, one final question. >> i heard someone compare aereo not to taping a program but that this is akin to someone taping a program on your behalf and selling it back to you on a monthly bases.

can you explain, i bought an antenna and installed it and y a cable subscription as well. where does, if aereo cost $8-$12 and we are talking about $70-$96 a year -- is that all value created from hosting it in the cloud and do you understand why eyes are being raised of trying to profit on the hill? >> guest: i am not aware of the eyes being raised. the only bill i remember being called on the floor was the rockefeller bill. we didn't ask for it but we are happy to acknowledge its

presence. let's start with number one. no broadcaster disputed the facts and the facts were consumer decides what to record, they press the record buttons and make the decisions like on their home dvr. records it and decides when not to view it. i don't understand when the comparison you are saying. it is somebody who doesn't want to believe the facts or hasn't read the fact and both are dangerous. we don't sell shows or content. whether you use aereo once or 60 hours a day. we charge you a fee for providing the equipment. much like tivo. if you buy a tivo