Well, this was bound to happen
Their business model is providing a connection between an antenna in one city, and a receiver in another. The idea being that by making use of their service, you can receive a transmission that you would not ordinarily be able to pick up.
On the face of it, this is hardly any different from you installing a very long cable and repeater amplifiers to connect your set to that out-of-area aerial. Of course, in the digital age, you could use a suitable server with the right hardware to demodulate and demultiplex the signal at the far end, and send the resulting stream of zeros and ones over the existing infrastructure of the Internet. You just need to reconstruct the images at your end.
Now, since the signal is digital, all your server really has to do is shunt bits around more or less verbatim, from a USB tuner to the Ethernet port; all it needs to do is add an overhead so predictable it hardly takes any time to compute it. Even a modestly-specced server will have more than enough grunt to do that all day long, from many tuners; so there are definite economies of scale to be made. Meaning, it becomes a service for which you can charge money.
Of course, since they wouldn't have a job in the first place otherwise, it seems reasonable at first sight for the TV companies broadcasting the signals to those remote antennas that they should expect a cut of the profits. But the TV companies wouldn't have charged you, the viewer, a penny to watch their programmes from closer up to where they were broadcast. See the paradox?
The thing is, "free-to-air" TV isn't really free. It's paid for by advertising. The idea is that eventually the viewers buy things that were advertised on TV, and the money they bring in pays for the advertisements, and the money earned by the TV company from the advertisements pays for the bait -- i.e., the programmes that fill the breaks between advertisements.
One person stringing a cable from coast to coast across the USA to watch out-of-state TV probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow. But when there are a lot of people doing it, suddenly that's a lot of advertisements that are going to be viewed by people who, for purely geographical reasons, are never going to buy the products and services advertised. Which means that they are watching the programmes in between, without ever paying for them as would viewers in the intended catchment area.
And that, ultimately, is what the TV people really have a problem with. It's basically the same mentality that lets unsold food rot while homeless people starve, only at least nobody died of missing a TV show.