>> the bottom line, the sooner we can delay this health care law, the sooner we can get people back to work, and focus on expanding opportunity for everyone. for now, thank you for listening. >> thank you for speaking in supporting fairness for all. have a great weekend. the next washington journal, public policy at the white house and capitol hill. ben andsts are robert ra brian walsh. then a discussion about race with michael denzil smith and armstrong williams. washington journal, live at 7:00 on c-span. >> this week on the communicators, the ceo and

founder of aereo. what is it? >> we think of it as a really new way of thinking about how people are going to consumed hell of vision in the future. it is an online platform among which is direct to consumers, and he will get access today to live broadcast television, along with a dvr on any device, without cable connections, using the internet for eight dollars a month. >> this is over the air broadcasting channels? >> that is correct. >> what am i holding my hand to? wax that is the key element. that is the foundation. it is a micro antenna. think of it as how you used to have over the air antennas in the past. throughturize them technology. the purpose of miniaturizing

them is so we can build hundreds of thousands of these things into a very small room. we can aloud cloud implementation of how consumers can capture the signal. it is the big innovation here. the cloud technologies allow us to lower the cost down very dramatically. lower barriers to consumers. you do not need boxes or cables or chords. you just go online and sign up. that is the antenna. >> what is a made up of? >> that is copper. that is just the loop. there is a host of signal processing technology that is on a circuit board. it looks like a telecommunications equipment that amounts to standard. >> does this provide hd reception? >> certainly. >> what is the legal status of

ereo? challenged by 17 broadcasters in new york when we announced our intentions to launch the company. a year ago at this point. to stopked the court us. we were fortunate of the court took a really detailed view of the technology. it was a hearing, almost a trial, included we succeeded on our merits. the technology was going to be lawful. they decide on to stop that. that was significant for the company. it was a touchy issue. that validation, we

appealed that decision to appellate courts. year, they this revalidated the technology. it should not be stopped. fort happens, looking another do over, the plaintiffs appealed that as well. the requested the entire circuit court to get together. lawyer, but i think these terms these days. the entire circuit panel then commented yesterday denying their request. that is the current status. while the trial continues at the lower court level, and discovery and various other things that are going on. >> how many customers does it

currently have? >> we have not disclosed. we are a private company. in particular, we are litigation. that complicates things for us further. what we are finding is that as we go to a city, several people register to say we like the idea, we understand the concept, we use an antenna or we don't have cable tv. or a variety of other reasons. later stand online video. -- we understand online video. this makes sense to combine these alternatives to create a full experience at the price point that seems more logical. most of these people do not watch hundreds of channels. they watch four-five channels.

there is at least some rationale, some logic along with are valuable to consumers. >> are the cable channels that are part of the service? >> we have, we are working with bloomberg. that seems to have done really well. it coincides with our view that television's evolution is going to be skinny live and deep libraries. things that are not time sensitive can be libraries. if you go to netflix or amazon, or any of these, you have a tremendous amount of cable content. leaving people want live for things that are relevant. fore think people want live things that are relevant. special events, things of that nature.

-- will not focus it. is >> what is your response when broadcasters say you are stealing their signal? >> at some point, you have to call it what it is. it is name-calling. , they say iturts is a legal technology. it is consistent with what -- it isintended to difficult to me to look at it beyond name-calling. the fact of the matter is, this content is paid for by the consumers in advertising spectrum. it is worth clarifying that the technology is only applied to free to air television. it is not apply to cable.

cable channel, it is a productive partnership. it is difficult for me to even answer the question, when you're required to program to consumers interest, a consumer has a right to an antenna, and whether they buy the antenna from radioshack, or from aereo is not relevant. we have established a paradigm of the length of the wire that connects to your dvr, and to television sets, it isn't a matter of debate. if you live in an apartment building where there are 50 foot wires versus a 10 foot wire, how is that different? we want to bring into the conversation a reporter with communications daily. >> it is good to be here.

>> from the very beginning of your company's existence, you have been the set by lawsuits by the threat of lawsuits. walk me through your thought process as you decided to start a company, knowing that the big broadcasters would immediately attempt to sue you out of existence. >> my hope was, and when we started, we spent months walking around and educating people. our hope was that as we educate these folks, they would recognize that some of this innovation, as unexpected as it is, can be good. frankly, here is a great example of how upstart technology was trying to expand the audience base was outside of the .cosystem

our goal was we would educate people. we knew there would be controversy. but there was a belief that they would prevail. >> the second circuit cited with your company. dissenthe judges in the has had harsh words for you. he called the service a sham, or a scam. a contrivance overengineered in copyrightt to avoid act. how would you respond to those accusations? >> first and foremost, it is important to note that in the we spend money to

understand the law and engineer technology to fit within the law. allspond to that by saying we're doing is understand the law. we are taking advantage of the guardrails that the law set up, and the purpose is to build technology that complies within those. i think as is a perfectly fine thing to do. how would you characterize somebody who looks at the speed limit while driving, and sets to not exceed the speed limit, and follow the law? >> broadcasters might say that while you may be acting within the letter of the copyright law, by having a specific antenna for each individual customer, you are violating the spirit of the copyright law, and the programmer producers are not getting their share of royalties.

i -- >> i think we would answer that in the following ways. about 54 million people get television over the air using an antenna. are you saying that those people are wrong? the intent behind the broadcasting law that started in 1932 was the spectrum would be granted so that broadcasters could program for the public interest. it was paid for every day by the value of the spectrum. it is paid for by the advertising that those consumers that are exposed to it. ist the size of the antenna should not be a matter of debate. people are being compensated because there is advertising.

the revenue that is dominant for these broadcasters. the issue is, this industry in general react the same way to every technological innovation that comes around. we are on c-span. the broadcasters have the same fight with cable companies that lasted a number of years until it became a meaningful business. now everyone is a happy partner. this happy with vcrs. same dispute. many billions of dollars. produce. this is the fault of the industry, to keep everyone out, and stop innovation. , as opposed to opportunities. >> people companies -- cable companies have to pay. when they started, they went around to customers and said we can improve your reception, and

that lasted for a while. eventually, congress change that and set up a consent regime. even if the cable companies want to take these signals out of the air, they still have to get permission from the broadcasters , or pay the broadcasters. what makes area -- aereo different? >> i do not think so. we are treated very unfairly. you have to take a look at the whole thing in a grander scope. there is a distinction. there has been since time immemorial. tuner, an who makes a box, and an antenna am a doesn't pay transmission consent. they're providing consumer equipment. the companies that have rights that go along with being able to

buy content, being able to force people to sell them content, they have a monopoly right in markets, because they have the rights to public assess -- access. there are a big day of riots -- there are a bouquet of rights. here is the internet, no rights. absolutely no rights. futureconstraints of the , we do not know what is going to happen these of the net neutrality. system with -- ecosystem with a tremendous amount of uncertainty. here's a tremendous new technology. two,d you can equate the

they have the rights and protections that a cable company does. is making noregime sense. every car radio needs to pave retransmission fees? is whattion scheme you're talking about. lex will be the difference youtubeaereo and taking broadcast programs? >> structure early, technologically, a huge amount of difference. the way the technology works, each individual consumer gets their own antenna. gets their own dvr locker. they control the experience. we do not take the signal. the consumer are able to tune,

do their video separately. it is exclusive to them. for example, if a bird flu in front of their antenna, and it did not fly in front of the neighbors, yours would be subject to interruption. that is how i look at it. it is a distinct relationship. if every other company decided to build technology, that protects that paradigm, and says -- in fact, there are network dvr's, which are the same technology, comcast is doing trials in multiple markets. they are no different. they are exactly the same technologies. somehow the law should apply different way to them, and not to us? >> where did the name come from?

>> in india, i am from india originally. i immigrated in the 1990s. antennas are called aereos. as i was searching for a name, i thought of combining aereo with video. it sounded cool. >> what is your background? business wise. >> i'm an engineer by training. in the late 1999, i started a company which was called navik, which pioneered how to collect formation from cable boxes. we processed millions and millions of channel changes, and the information was useful for a variety of purposes. that company became successful. it was acquired by microsoft in

2008. that freed me up time to focus on the new project, and then i decided to pursue aereo. >> to have a blog that talked about the cities that you are in or coming to. atlanta, boston, 16 cities. >> 22 total that we hope to finish by fall. >> what about washington? what's i believe it is on the list. >> what is the reaction on the fcc? >> at the moment, we focus on education. our goal is to educate people and show people what the capabilities of the technology are. athink that it is tremendously positive reaction that we get. this is cool. it really brings competition and choice into the marketplace. it is obviously important for them.

it creates an alternative way of thinking about where is the next generation go? how are they going to consume content? what are the devices? what technology will be important to continue to foster a great experience echo system -- ecosystem. the cost of content is coming down. there are different sources, different approach being developed. a number of companies are doing innovative things. i think there will be a time where there'll be a set of platforms you can just go to and say this is my access to news, and things of that nature. they are rational. they are not --you do not pay $300 of month.

-- if the courts find that this is not a violation, if your business is allowed to proceed, others are going to get on this. there'll be competition on this. time warner cable has been considering doing something like this. taking signals and putting them on internet streams to avoid paying transmission fees. some broadcast companies have threatened to take their programming off the air. what does the future of the television industry look like, or the copyright act doesn't quite fit? >> i think it fits. there is absolutely crystal clear today -- and people should, this is an important point, i hope the press is

educating people. there is a distinction between broadcast, it is supposed to be free to you as a consumer. and other copyrighted content that would be required to pay for separately. there is a huge distinction. it is absolutely incorrect and wrong, the idea that his technology allows you to access what you have --that is not going to change the industry of telik knology -- television. i think, again, it is a naïve perspective. time warner can do this -- have to take a reality of the situation. all cable companies today are buying programming from consolidated media companies. it is not a single broad crass

-- broadcaster. until thetion is that ecosystem moves towards individualized choice, you are not going to seeing any proliferation of these kinds of technologies that these people are talking about. a lot of these are empty, hyperbole arguments that people use. distinction.e a to answer your question on people going away from the broadcast situation, i think that that has a rational -- irrational and saber rattling from a set of people who aren't interested in innovation. the reality is that 50 million people are using an antenna in some way shape or form. if they are that bad for you, if the idea of consumers taking a

video using an antenna, you should have already left the system. you should have been a cable company a long time ago. how is it that people can do that and there is no harm, and life is going great? i little company like us is going to be the death of you? the reality is that there's been an agenda behind this historically. this is been part of the issue. just be cable,er and have the dual revenue stream. the problem with that is that the intent in congress granting spectrum was the right for people to be able to get this programming for free, using a technology. that was the basis of the spectrum grant. that needs to be protected. have a difficult time believing believing that the lawmakers are going to sit idle when this develops.

that people are going to be able that that not think is the future of the united states. >> they may target companies like you. >> i think that there is a desire to support innovation. i think there is a desire to have choice. naïve immigrant point of view, that says that it is the u.s. system that new things make progress have been. >> what is a cost for the consumer? >> eight dollars a month. there are two different plans. >> what does one get? >> for a dollars, you get a single antenna with 20 hours of storage for recordings. you can watch on any device. we do not charge for alice.

you get the ability to do that with two antennas, and 60 hours of storage. >> and can somebody be traveling and watching continuous programming? >> it is a geo-locked technology. we protect the idea that a local broadcast is local. when you exit, it is constrained to your home market. -- wordedid you find your funding come from? >> we are private. we are venture financed. >> barry diller's is one of your finances? >> he is an investor. --in 10 years from now, first of all, who is your competition today? , is thatle and apple your competition?

>> it remains to be seen how this is going to develop. these are the early days. -- there isumers not going to be a single one dominant player. there is going to be a fracturing of some sort. i think it is going to be online. it is going to be decoupled. the experience is going to be decoupled from an ownership perspective with the content. it is the opposite of what is today today. it is a highly integrated stack. if you wanted to provide user interfaces, you cannot get into them. we think it is definitely going to be online. with ticket is going to be dominated by people that provide interesting user experiences, and we think more rationalized ultimatelys inevitable just because the way

the system is set up today. it is out of control. i think the prices, the way they are asked lading, versus how people pay for it, you are seeing that in young consumers. that is a trend that should not be ignored. the market is evolving away from the conventional model that has been there brady companies that how theseo create consumers want to consume, and create the ecosystem, they are the ones that are going to be dominant. is it more legal people use peer-to-peer filesharing software to record a broadcast show, and make it available on bit torrent?

>> i cannot comment on the legal aspects of any of those things. i've never thought about the distinction. if those in the vigils create an individual copy of antennas, they are similar. i do not think peer-to-peer does that. it is not individual antennas, but individuals consumers taking those copies. they are technologically distinct. >> we have been talking with chat, the ceo and founder of ae reo. thank you. >> thank you. >> i decided that he was a delicious subject for a biography when it dawned on me that he had been not only at abraham lincoln's bedside, but

also at the bedside of william mckinley. who could this fellow be? when i opened the archive, i realize just what a rich subject it was. his life are really had to book ends at the biographical. personalrambling of secretary, private secretary. so much of what we know about lincoln comes from intimate contact with him. on the other end of his life, he served not under -- not only under mckinley but also for teddy roosevelt. it is wonderful, iconic the ends of american history. you realize that all of the chapters in between in american history from the civil war