# New OTT option for local channels: Locast



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Another service has come along trying to fill the niche vacated by Aereo. Locast aims to avoid the legal problems Aereo encountered by providing local channels for free. I was just watching several of the NY OTA channels just now (on my PC) and they looked quite good.

They are currently offering locals in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, Baltimore, Chicago, Houston, Dallas and Denver.

NY Times article: Locast, a Free App Streaming Network TV, Would Love to Get Sued

Locast's home page: Home - Locast


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Diana Collins said:


> Another service has come along trying to fill the niche vacated by Aereo. Locast aims to avoid the legal problems Aereo encountered by providing local channels for free. I was just watching several of the NY OTA channels just now (on my PC) and they looked quite good.
> They are currently offering locals in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, Baltimore, Chicago, Houston, Dallas and Denver.
> NY Times article: Locast, a Free App Streaming Network TV, Would Love to Get Sued
> Locast's home page: Home - Locast


DD 5.1/Stereo or PCM? My DMA is not listed, but I would change to NY or Philly if the picture & sound are good.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Yeah, I set this up on a Roku in Philly. Worked great. I don't remember if it had DD 5.1 or not. Good option if you only want live TV but don't have an antenna. But didn't the last company (I forget the name) to try doing this get sued out of existence?

EDIT: I just read the linked story. Aereo got in trouble because they charged for it. Apparently since Locast doesn't, it's still legal. Interesting to see how this will pan out.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

mdavej said:


> Yeah, I set this up on a Roku in Philly. Worked great. I don't remember if it had DD 5.1 or not. Good option if you only want live TV but don't have an antenna. But didn't the last company (I forget the name) to try doing this get sued out of existence?


True, they are gone. But for $5 I would test it for a month. It figured out my DMA is not on the list, so I may stop the service and try again.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I live about an hour outside of Baltimore but the location finder knows I'm not in the Baltimore market, per se. Hopefully this will work eventually.


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

So what's the long-game for this venture? Plenty of costs associated with providing this service, but where's the revenue stream to maintain. I saw on the website they're asking for donations at this point to assist. Does this turn into a *wink wink* "donations strongly encouraged" scenario so it's still "free?" Do they think they can eventually leverage the broadcasters to pay Locast for distribution and larger potential viewer counts than they might reach with a typical OTA broadcast signal?


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

tatergator1 said:


> So what's the long-game for this venture? Plenty of costs associated with providing this service, but where's the revenue stream to maintain. I saw on the website they're asking for donations at this point to assist. Does this turn into a *wink wink* "donations strongly encouraged" scenario so it's still "free?" Do they think they can eventually leverage the broadcasters to pay Locast for distribution and larger potential viewer counts than they might reach with a typical OTA broadcast signal?


Must be some Freepers on this forum. This service has been around for nearly a year and I heard about it for the first time yesterday on FR.com. Seems like something that would have been ontopic at CES.

I guess the $5/month is kind of a Wink. You get hit with relentless opportunities to support. Wonder what happens after you pay. I could use this on a Roku but on my PC, it said my location is not served. The channels streamed in my market are a fraction of what I get via antenna. Still nice.


----------



## reneg (Jun 19, 2002)

wizwor said:


> Wonder what happens after you pay.


 Nothing much from my experience. I used locast for a couple weeks in Dallas while traveling last October. Donated and haven't been pestered at all.


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

I'm trying it out now on my Roku. I live half way between Balt and DC but I can only choose 1 guide, either or. Picture not as crisp as OTA but when the antenna is acting up, I can see this as a quick alternative to keep the family happy. Every time you go to the guide to pick a new show, you are greeted with a new plea for money, NBD really. Wonder if it goes away once one pays something?


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

JoeKustra said:


> True, they are gone. But for $5 I would test it for a month. It figured out my DMA is not on the list, so I may stop the service and try again.


I wonder how far of a range they give you? I'm about 35 miles outside of Philly and it let me sign up and steam channels on my iMac, quality was decent.


----------



## eherberg (Feb 17, 2011)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> I wonder how far of a range they give you? I'm about 35 miles outside of Philly and it let me sign up and steam channels on my iMac, quality was decent.


I looked into it for my sister-in-law in Massachusetts. She's in the Boston DMA although no antenna in the world would get her the Boston stations. According to the response I got, it's DMA-based. So she would qualify. One county over and she would be in the Springfield DMA, but where she is, she would be eligible. Unfortunately, she doesn't have a Roku and wasn't too enthused about getting another streamer just for Locast.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

eherberg said:


> I looked into it for my sister-in-law in Massachusetts. She's in the Boston DMA although no antenna in the world would get her the Boston stations. According to the response I got, it's DMA-based. So she would qualify. One county over and she would be in the Springfield DMA, but where she is, she would be eligible. Unfortunately, she doesn't have a Roku and wasn't too enthused about getting another streamer just for Locast.


I'm in the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton DMA, which is like number 64. I remember from my old DHG days. I could check Philly or NY, and TiVo has my zipcode mapped to OTA from NY to DE. I used another computer and blocked geolocation service. I could then choose. Something to play with later.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

eherberg said:


> I looked into it for my sister-in-law in Massachusetts. She's in the Boston DMA although no antenna in the world would get her the Boston stations. According to the response I got, it's DMA-based. So she would qualify. One county over and she would be in the Springfield DMA, but where she is, she would be eligible. Unfortunately, she doesn't have a Roku and wasn't too enthused about getting another streamer just for Locast.


Got it, that makes sense. I can get almost all Philly stations on an antenna crystal clear except WHYY (local PBS) and WPVI (local ABC) as they are VHF and there's all kind of interference. And if I'm not mistaken they are some of the last VHF stations left in the US.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Got it, that makes sense. I can get almost all Philly stations on an antenna crystal clear except WHYY (local PBS) and WPVI (local ABC) as they are VHF and there's all kind of interference. And if I'm not mistaken they are some of the last VHF stations left in the US.


I think you mean UHF. Spectrum auction killed UHF above channel 36. Only thing left for TV is 2-13 (VHF) and 14-36 (low UHF). WHYY moves up from channel 12 to 13 in mid-2020. All other Philly channels move this August. All the current UHF channels will stay UHF, and all the current VHF channels (except WHYY) won't move at all. Nationally, after the repack, there will be more VHF channels than there are now.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

mdavej said:


> I think you mean UHF. Spectrum auction killed UHF above channel 36. Only thing left for TV is 2-13 (VHF) and 14-36 (low UHF). WHYY moves up from channel 12 to 13 in mid-2020. All other Philly channels move this August. All the current UHF channels will stay UHF, and all the current VHF channels (except WHYY) won't move at all. Nationally, after the repack, there will be more VHF channels than there are now.


According to WPVI's website they are low-band VHF. And WHYY is also VHF. I thought after the HD switchover most stations in the US became UHF?


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> According to WPVI's website they are low-band VHF. And WHYY is also VHF. I thought after the HD switchover most stations in the US became UHF?


They are indeed VHF and will remain so. High UHF got auctioned off, so all those channels have to move down. Most stations already are and will remain UHF simply because there is more UHF spectrum than VHF. But upper UHF will have to move down to either lower UHF (if there's room) or VHF because those frequencies will no longer be available for television broadcast.

Here's where I got my data. Note that there is nothing above channel 36 (high UHF) after the repack.
RabbitEars.Info
Transition Schedule
https://data.fcc.gov/download/incentive-auctions/Transition_Files/Post_Auction_Paramters.xlsx (see column E for the final channel after repack)


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

mdavej said:


> They are indeed VHF and will remain so. High UHF got auctioned off, so all those channels have to move down. Most stations already are and will remain UHF simply because there is more UHF spectrum than VHF. But upper UHF will have to move down to either lower UHF (if there's room) or VHF because those frequencies will no longer be available for television broadcast.
> 
> Here's where I got my data. Note that there is nothing above channel 36 (high UHF) after the repack.
> RabbitEars.Info
> ...


Hopefully not too many folks will end up with VHF as no one who lives within a few miles of me can get either of those stations on antenna. But maybe it's just something in this area causing the problem.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> According to WPVI's website they are low-band VHF. And WHYY is also VHF. I thought after the HD switchover most stations in the US became UHF?


You're right that the vast majority of TV stations are on UHF, not VHF. But there are still quite a few on VHF around the country, with most of those being high VHF. Here in Nashville, our NBC station is on 10, our PBS station is on 8 and our CBS station broadcasts on both 25 and 5.

In the spectrum auction awhile back (that auctioned off high-end UHF frequencies that are converting to cellular LTE and 5G signals, mainly T-Mobile), UHF stations could get money for moving down to VHF and high VHF stations could get money for moving down to low VHF. So there will be more VHF stations after the repack.

While some, like you, report more interference on VHF stations, in my experience they are less prone to multipath glitching when wind blows through the trees.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tatergator1 said:


> So what's the long-game for this venture? Plenty of costs associated with providing this service, but where's the revenue stream to maintain. I saw on the website they're asking for donations at this point to assist. Does this turn into a *wink wink* "donations strongly encouraged" scenario so it's still "free?" Do they think they can eventually leverage the broadcasters to pay Locast for distribution and larger potential viewer counts than they might reach with a typical OTA broadcast signal?


For Locast to have any chance of long-term survival and growth, they MUST remain non-profit and therefore rely only on donations. And based on the info in the NY Times article, I doubt they're going to survive only on donations for individuals who use it. Seems to me that it would need major underwriting from wealthy donors, charitable trusts and/or corporations (i.e. the major sources that PBS and their related entities rely on).

Broadcast stations owners (companies such as Sinclair, Nexstar, etc., who own the local affiliates of ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and The CW) are not going to contribute to Locast. No, they don't want folks to even know it exists, which is why they're not bothering to bring a lawsuit against them (yet). Because they want you to watch their stations via cable or satellite, so that they can get retransmission fees from those providers. Likewise, the networks themselves don't want you to know about Locast either, because they get a cut of their affiliates' retrans fees.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Got it, that makes sense. I can get almost all Philly stations on an antenna crystal clear except WHYY (local PBS) and WPVI (local ABC) as they are VHF and there's all kind of interference. And if I'm not mistaken they are some of the last VHF stations left in the US.


Maybe, but WMUR and WENH are vhf in New Hampshire. WGBH is headed to VHF in Boston. Most Maine stations are VHF. You are not alone!


----------



## eherberg (Feb 17, 2011)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Got it, that makes sense. I can get almost all Philly stations on an antenna crystal clear except WHYY (local PBS) and WPVI (local ABC) as they are VHF and there's all kind of interference. And if I'm not mistaken they are some of the last VHF stations left in the US.


In my area (admittedly in super-remote Boonie-Land) -- it's only VHF stations for me. It's like living back in the 60's where the UHF dial on the TV located below the VHF dial collects a lot of dust and is never used ...


----------



## eherberg (Feb 17, 2011)

NashGuy said:


> While some, like you, report more interference on VHF stations, in my experience they are less prone to multipath glitching when wind blows through the trees.


Yeah -- for city folk, UHF is nice (especially with the ability to use those cute little toy flat antennas). But out in the wilderness, VHF is still king.


----------



## DJinNJ (Jul 7, 2017)

JoeKustra said:


> My DMA is not listed, but I would change to NY or Philly if the picture & sound are good.


Are you able to watch the channels just by setting either your Roku or your Locast account to an address in one of the supported markets? Or is it geofenced by IP address?

I'm in NYC market so it works regardless, but I have family members living in other markets who would be interested if they can just fudge their location.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

DJinNJ said:


> Are you able to watch the channels just by setting either your Roku or your Locast account to an address in one of the supported markets? Or is it geofenced by IP address?
> I'm in NYC market so it works regardless, but I have family members living in other markets who would be interested if they can just fudge their location.


When I went to the web page, the app asked for my location. I told Windows it was ok. Then it displayed a screen with the existing locations and said "come back later". On another computer I did not give it my location. I was then asked to choose the city. I do not know if the windows default for geolocation is yes or no. Some apps can get close by using my ISP's IP address. I didn't try with my Roku.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

On my mobile device when I chose Baltimore showed me the Baltimore lineup and schedule but when I tried to stream a show it said it had geolocated me (somehow) outside the Baltimore area and wouldn't play the stream.

I assume that there's IP geolocation at a minimum. I think it could be spoofed if you had a VPN located in a service area with a high enough bandwidth.


----------



## DJinNJ (Jul 7, 2017)

Yeah it looks like it uses geolocation even with the Roku. Too bad, but not a surprise. VPN isn't a great option for non-technically inclined family members so we'll just have to watch for their market to hopefully be added.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

NashGuy said:


> For Locast to have any chance of long-term survival and growth, they MUST remain non-profit and therefore rely only on donations. And based on the info in the NY Times article, I doubt they're going to survive only on donations for individuals who use it. Seems to me that it would need major underwriting from wealthy donors, charitable trusts and/or corporations (i.e. the major sources that PBS and their related entities rely on).
> 
> Broadcast stations owners (companies such as Sinclair, Nexstar, etc., who own the local affiliates of ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and The CW) are not going to contribute to Locast. No, they don't want folks to even know it exists, which is why they're not bothering to bring a lawsuit against them (yet). Because they want you to watch their stations via cable or satellite, so that they can get retransmission fees from those providers. Likewise, the networks themselves don't want you to know about Locast either, because they get a cut of their affiliates' retrans fees.


AT&T just donated $500k. AT&T Donates $500,000 to Locast Free Broadcast-TV Streaming Org

"AT&T added the Locast interactive app to internet-connected DirecTV and U-verse set-tops on May 30 - giving it a path to perhaps eventually avoid paying retransmission fees to broadcasters."


----------



## dadrepus (Jan 4, 2012)

Bob Coxner said:


> AT&T just donated $500k. AT&T Donates $500,000 to Locast Free Broadcast-TV Streaming Org
> 
> "AT&T added the Locast interactive app to internet-connected DirecTV and U-verse set-tops on May 30 - giving it a path to perhaps eventually avoid paying retransmission fees to broadcasters."


This is probably why ABC got pulled from DirectTV in my hotel when we went to watch GMA in Richmond. DirectTV said the channel was pulled by the owner of the station. Which I think is Nextar?


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

dadrepus said:


> This is probably why ABC got pulled from DirectTV in my hotel when we went to watch GMA in Richmond. DirectTV said the channel was pulled by the owner of the station. Which I think is Nextar?


AT&T and Nexstar are locked in a big battle.

More Than 100 Nexstar Stations Go Dark on DirecTV Amid Retrans Battle


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

I gave up on Locast a few months ago. Every 5 minutes they would interrupt what I was watching to ask for a "donation". It hardly sounds like a "donation" to me. More like a monthly fee. The only reliable way to watch channels from another market is through a Slingbox. Of course that means you need to have a Slingbox set up on someone's TV that is located in that market, but then you can watch those channels from anywhere regardless of your location.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

Adam C. said:


> I gave up on Locast a few months ago. Every 5 minutes they would interrupt what I was watching to ask for a "donation". It hardly sounds like a "donation" to me. More like a monthly fee. The only reliable way to watch channels from another market is through a Slingbox. Of course that means you need to have a Slingbox set up on someone's TV that is located in that market, but then you can watch those channels from anywhere regardless of your location.


I haven't had that experience at all. I haven't seen any interruptions for donations. I've only started watching recently so it's possible that things were different in the past. The only negative is a very slight audio sync problem. That could be due to my casting the programming to my big screen tv. I've been watching Boston and New York. I haven't yet checked out their other cities.

What's great about Locast for me is that it's a free alternative to NFL Sunday Ticket. I can watch the Patriots on a Boston channel when they're not available in my local market.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Bob Coxner said:


> I haven't had that experience at all. I haven't seen any interruptions for donations. I've only started watching recently so it's possible that things were different in the past. The only negative is a very slight audio sync problem. That could be due to my casting the programming to my big screen tv. I've been watching Boston and New York. I haven't yet checked out their other cities.
> 
> What's great about Locast for me is that it's a free alternative to NFL Sunday Ticket. I can watch the Patriots on a Boston channel when they're not available in my local market.


What device are you running Locast on?


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

dlfl said:


> What device are you running Locast on?


Windows 10 desktop and a Chromebook.


----------



## celtic pride (Nov 8, 2005)

i live 90 miles from the towers north of los angeles and cant receive any clear channels with an antenna. I tried locast on my roku and my apple tv and was suprised to see 45 channels on there. but i still prefer cable because i need to use tivo to program and record tv shows and sports when i'm not home.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 1, 2004)

I agree that the lack of a DVR is a weak point. Locast is already skating on thin ice legally and I suspect adding cloud DVR would push them over the edge.

I did find one person who said they were able to use something called FitzyTV to record Locast programming. FitzyTV has a cloud DVR service. I may look into it, although probably 95% of my locast use will be to watch out of market NFL games and I don't mind watching those live.

FitzyTV - Live TV & Cloud DVR


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

Bob Coxner said:


> I agree that the lack of a DVR is a weak point. Locast is already skating on thin ice legally and I suspect adding cloud DVR would push them over the edge.
> 
> I did find one person who said they were able to use something called FitzyTV to record Locast programming. FitzyTV has a cloud DVR service. I may look into it, although probably 95% of my locast use will be to watch out of market NFL games and I don't mind watching those live.
> 
> FitzyTV - Live TV & Cloud DVR


Do you have a VPN that you can change your location? Locast won't let me watch channels in other markets.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Do you have a VPN that you can change your location? Locast won't let me watch channels in other markets.


How To Fake Your Location in Google Chrome


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

eherberg said:


> Yeah -- for city folk, UHF is nice (especially with the ability to use those cute little toy flat antennas). But out in the wilderness, VHF is still king.


With the station re-pack some stations are moving back to VHF.


----------



## skypros (May 19, 2015)

Thanks Mikeguy
IT WORKED!!!!!



Mikeguy said:


> How To Fake Your Location in Google Chrome


----------



## Adam C. (Jul 24, 2017)

I can't get Locast to work at all now, even in my local area (NYC channels). I just get a spinning circle when I try to load any of the channels.


----------



## tapokata (Apr 26, 2017)

ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC sue free streaming-TV startup Locast

ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX have brought suit against Locast.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

tapokata said:


> ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC sue free streaming-TV startup Locast
> 
> ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX have brought suit against Locast.


Was only a matter of time.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I understand it but, sigh. I wonder where this entire mess will be in 50 years.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

tapokata said:


> ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC sue free streaming-TV startup Locast
> 
> ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX have brought suit against Locast.


I had to chuckle over this response from Locast's attorney:


> A lawyer for Locast, David Hosp, said in a statement to CNET that Locast is providing a public service by retransmitting the broadcasters' free, over-the-air broadcasts.


I'm sure that Disney would appreciate that sentiment with its catalog.


----------



## suzannesstud (Sep 11, 2016)

I believe broadcasters will likely encounter problems in their suit, though, because Locast is operating under the proper premises.

In their case, they don’t need broadcasters’ approval or permission because they don’t charge for the service and are providing a valid legal solution for making sure that all households in each market can be served thus eliminating the idea of “unserved” and “underserved” households in markets. Since “unserved” and “underserved” households technically can be anywhere in the market due to conditions such as being too far away to receive an acceptable signal or even being very near the broadcast tower but with no way to do an antenna or no way to do one in a manner that can overcome interference and other issues that make a signal unacceptable, they are providing the same free of charge equal opportunity to the entire market that the broadcasters are.

The whole idea is that broadcasters provide OTA signals free of charge using an antenna and that any person or entity, as long as they don’t charge for or make a profit off of those signals, can provide retransmission of those signals without having to get permission. It’s the same principle TV translator stations use to retransmit OTA signals without having to get permission. The only requirements are that translator stations are not allowed originate their own programming, and they must be set up to go off the air anytime the station they are retransmitting goes off the air until it comes back on. In the case of Locast, they could just go dark, in such instance, or have some type of slide that comes on and stays on indicating the station they are retransmitting is currently off-air or it could say the station is having “Technical Difficulties”, if that happens to be the case.

In any event, I think Locast has a solid and valid case that can be proven by citing FCC rules allowing the retransmission, which can be done in any form whether OTA translator or through the Internet and streaming without needing permission, provided there is no charge or profit from it, and I think broadcasters might have to chalk this one up as looking on the bright side at the fact they will get more eyeballs watching which also translates into more people seeing the commercials which, in turn, does translate into higher ad revenues for the broadcasters and higher revenues for the businesses who’s commercials are getting the extra viewership. The whole goal of and the reason this provision in the FCC’s rules exists is to help do away with there having to be any “unserved” or “underserved” households, and Locast is absolutely helping the FCC accomplish this goal by providing their service.

It’s a win-win-win all the way around, and with AT&T having just socked in a big $500,000 donation, that will definitely help as they are supporting this option to help people circumvent blackouts that happen when retransmission negotiations encounter hurdles where an agreement can’t be reached before the date needed to avoid blackout. Plus, AT&T and other providers see it as leverage to help with those negotiations because, if negotiations fail, they can leverage Locast as a work-around, and this might actually help shore up the continuously rising costs of retransmission agreements.

A clear-cut case can be made that Locast is in the best interest of all involved. The broadcasters (to get all possible eyeballs watching which helps raise various revenues), the providers (to help as leverage with retransmission negotiations and provide a work-around if needed), the general viewing public (to have all major networks available free of charge regardless of the situation), and even the FCC (to accomplish and fulfill it’s goals of eliminating having any “unserved” and “underserved” households. It will even help TV ratings by having all those extra eyeballs watching because you then eliminate the gaps that count against the ratings due to those households who would otherwise be unable to watch and have their viewership counted for those same ratings. In general, Locast just makes sense all the way around.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

AT&T is paying (through a donation) $500,000 to make local channels available to its customers without paying the content providers. 

Getting support from AT&T and Dish may be what sinks Locast.


----------



## suzannesstud (Sep 11, 2016)

realityboy said:


> AT&T is paying (through a donation) $500,000 to make local channels available to its customers without paying the content providers.
> 
> Getting support from AT&T and Dish may be what sinks Locast.


I'm actually thinking this will help them because they can use every donation they can get to be successful. With them doing it fully legal already, if providers back them and help out through donations, providers are sending a message to broadcasters that they are fighting back and taking a stand to help prevent retransmission fees from getting so high and should force better negotiations because broadcasters will have basically two choices. They can either choose to negotiate a fair amount with providers, or they can choose to miss out on that money and get absolutely nothing with Locast picking up the slack legally for free, and broadcasters won't be able to play the blackout card the same as before with there being an alternative option available legally for free. Sure they can choose to blackout, but it won't have quite the impact, if really much at all, and it will be in the broadcasters best interest to negotiate fairly with providers because, if providers continue to channel donations into Locast, that leverage will only grow stronger to help it remain in place to continue encouraging fair negotiations.

Besides, the FCC is already working on new rule making about the whole issue with retransmission disputes and trying to determine what is fair and what isn't as well as protection from blackouts in the case of disputes so broadcasters are going to be the ones with more to lose than anyone if they don't play fair because there will be the alternative option for which they will have no control over, and updated rules they must abide by and comply with.

It's appears this whole thing will all be coming to head and be shored up soon.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

suzannesstud said:


> I'm actually thinking this will help them because they can use every donation they can get to be successful. With them doing it fully legal already, if providers back them and help out through donations, providers are sending a message to broadcasters that they are fighting back and taking a stand to help prevent retransmission fees from getting so high and should force better negotiations because broadcasters will have basically two choices. They can either choose to negotiate a fair amount with providers, or they can choose to miss out on that money and get absolutely nothing with Locast picking up the slack legally for free, and broadcasters won't be able to play the blackout card the same as before with there being an alternative option available legally for free. Sure they can choose to blackout, but it won't have quite the impact, if really much at all, and it will be in the broadcasters best interest to negotiate fairly with providers because, if providers continue to channel donations into Locast, that leverage will only grow stronger to help it remain in place to continue encouraging fair negotiations.
> 
> Besides, the FCC is already working on new rule making about the whole issue with retransmission disputes and trying to determine what is fair and what isn't as well as protection from blackouts in the case of disputes so broadcasters are going to be the ones with more to lose than anyone if they don't play fair because there will be the alternative option for which they will have no control over, and updated rules they must abide by and comply with.
> 
> It's appears this whole thing will all be coming to head and be shored up soon.


Locast may have been doing everything completely legal as a non-profit, but AT&T and Dish are not non-profits. If they're profiting off the situation, the networks have a case. Locast needs to cut all ties with them.

The providers are not negotiating in good faith if they're actively exploring ways to distribute the channels to their customers for free rather than paying the retrans fee.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

realityboy said:


> Locast may have been doing everything completely legal as a non-profit, but AT&T and Dish are not non-profits. If they're profiting off the situation, the networks have a case. Locast needs to cut all ties with them.
> 
> The providers are not negotiating in good faith if they're actively exploring ways to distribute the channels to their customers for free rather than paying the retrans fee.


I don't think the networks really have a leg to stand on, tbh. Dish & DirecTV both offer antennas that can plug in to their satellite DVRs and pick up the local channels that way. DirecTV is giving those away for free to customers affected by the blackouts who ask. Should the tuner and antenna manufacturers they're using be sued by the networks too?

Locast is using a rule specifically spelled out to allow non-profits to fill in local OTA coverage gaps. If the networks don't want that, they can give back the billions of dollars worth of spectrum they enjoy the exclusive use of (for free) and go be cable channels.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Antennas are fine. Local stations have given them out as well during disputes. The signal is there. It’s free to use. It’s just not free to profit off of.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

realityboy said:


> Antennas are fine. Local stations have given them out as well during disputes. The signal is there. It's free to use. It's just not free to profit off of.


Yeah, the thing I find potentially hinky from a legal perspective about Locast is that they're completely relying on their nonprofit status yet they're taking "donations" from for-profit corporations that stand to gain financially from Locast's success. I'm not a lawyer and it may be that Locast is free and clear to continue doing what they're doing and free to take millions of donations from AT&T, DISH and other MVPDs in the future.

*And IF that's what happens, here's my prediction of where this is going...*

So long as Locast must contain their free streams inside their own separate Locast app, they won't crush MVPDs (i.e. services offering packages of live cable channels, including locals). But I do see Locast growing rapidly, spreading to all the largest TV markets around the country, and getting a lot of use from cord-cutters. And the existence of Locast would only add fuel to the cord-cutting fire, encouraging more defections from MVPDs. But, as I say, there would still be plenty of folks who want those national cable channels and who value having a unified UI that pulls together all their main sources of TV into one UI/app. So it's not like cable TV providers would disappear but I think it's quite likely that Locast's success would mean that local stations and their networks would get less retransmission fees from cable TV subscribers.

How would the networks respond? I think they'd say "Why should all those cord-cutters watching our stations watch for free through Locast? Why don't we fight fire with fire by offering free streams of our own stations inside our own apps? At least that way we can inject our own targeted ads and increase the ad revenue we're making instead of just letting Locast redistribute the standard broadcast stream with non-targeted ads."

So I could see Disney-owned Hulu offering a free live stream of your local ABC station. No more features than Locast offers, so no pausing or rewinding the live channel stream, no recording it. But it would be 100% free (with targeted ads) and wouldn't require an active Hulu account of any kind. And while you're in the Hulu app, besides the free live local ABC station, you'd also have access to the free ABC News Live streaming channel (already available on Roku in its own app), plus free on-demand samples of first episodes of lots of series available in the standard $6/mo Hulu service. (Click here to upgrade now! 99 cents the first month, $6 thereafter!)

CBS All Access would do the same thing with their CBS locals, plus CBSN and their other free live streaming news channels. The upcoming NBCU SVOD would do the same thing with their NBC locals, plus their new free NBC News Now channel.

Fox and The CW would put live streams of their own locals inside their free Fox and CW apps. But since neither has a paid streaming service, I could also imagine both networks striking deals with Hulu, CBS AA and the NBCU SVOD to put their free locals in those apps too if a deal could be worked out on the ad revenue. Maybe Fox and The CW keep 80% of the ad revenue from their streams while the app owners keep the other 20%. This could only help expand their channels' viewership and therefore ad revenue.

As far as that goes, we might see the big three networks making such deals among themselves, so that Hulu, CBS AA and the NBCU SVOD all end up with free live local streams of all 5 major broadcast networks. Of course, if you wanted cloud DVR/on-demand access to any of those networks' content, then you'd need to upgrade to a paid package.

Making such moves would only further erode the cable channel bundle and MVPD subscriptions, thereby further reducing local stations' and the broadcast nets' retrans compensation. But I think they all know that that's where things would be heading eventually if Locast is allowed to survive and thrive. Their only choice at that point would be to gradually cannibalize their MVPD distribution in favor of their own direct-to-consumer streaming distribution with more lucrative targeted ads.

In a way, it would be implementing the whole concept of ATSC 3.0, except without the need for all that new broadcast equipment.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

suzannesstud said:


> A clear-cut case can be made that Locast is in the best interest of all involved.


If it was _clear-cut_ they wouldn't sue. Don't like carriage fees sure have someone give away their product for free. Yes it's a product and yes carriage fees are fundamental to the companies. Giving away a few antennas (to appease a few customers) isn't the same as giving way an entire revenue stream. Take away the income and there won't be the same product to give away.


----------



## tapokata (Apr 26, 2017)

The "non-profit" umbrella is a McGuffin. The content is under copyright, and the ownership and use of that property belongs to holder of that copyright. Locast hasn't been granted the express permission of the rights holder (in this case, the networks) to broadcast or retransmit this material. The argument from the networks is basically on that premise.

That's why high school and local nonprofit theater groups don't perform first run theatrical shows- it doesn't matter if they make a profit or not- the owner of the property doesn't want it used in that manner, as it damages the value of their product. It's also the primary reason why PBS locals are part of any OTT package currently offered, as the ownership rights of much of the content is not controlled by PBS or the local PBS affiliate.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tapokata said:


> The "non-profit" umbrella is a McGuffin. The content is under copyright, and the ownership and use of that property belongs to holder of that copyright. Locast hasn't been granted the express permission of the rights holder (in this case, the networks) to broadcast or retransmit this material. The argument from the networks is basically on that premise.
> 
> That's why high school and local nonprofit theater groups don't perform first run theatrical shows- it doesn't matter if they make a profit or not- the owner of the property doesn't want it used in that manner, as it damages the value of their product. It's also the primary reason why PBS locals are part of any OTT package currently offered, as the ownership rights of much of the content is not controlled by PBS or the local PBS affiliate.


Yes, but broadcast TV channels are not covered by standard copyright law. They're covered by the STELA Act (originally passed in 1992, I think, renewed since) and that act specifically allows for non-profit groups to retransmit OTA broadcast signals free-of-charge, without the broadcaster's consent. I'm sure the drafters of the law were thinking of repeater towers in rural areas to get free TV from the cities spread out to distant farms and ranches in western states.

Note that STELA must be renewed this year if it is to survive. An alternative plan, co-sponsored by one R and one D, was recently submitted in the US House. It would do away with the whole retransmission compensation scheme that STELA put in place and instead all TV/video retransmission would be free-market negotiated between broadcasters and MVPDs under standard copyright law.

https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/bipartisan-bill-would-end-retrans-copyright-licenses


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

tapokata said:


> The "non-profit" umbrella is a McGuffin. The content is under copyright, and the ownership and use of that property belongs to holder of that copyright. Locast hasn't been granted the express permission of the rights holder (in this case, the networks) to broadcast or retransmit this material. The argument from the networks is basically on that premise.


It's not a McGuffin, it's the whole basis for the exemption spelled out by law:



> 17 U.S. Code § 111. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of broadcast programming by cable
> 
> (a)Certain Exempted.-The secondary transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission is not an infringement of copyright if-
> ...
> (5) the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system but is made by a governmental body, or other nonprofit organization, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, and without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service.


The question being sued over is whether Locast is really a non-profit is collecting donations consistent with this rule and whether they are responsible for a direct or indirect commercial advantage in doing so. The networks are alleging Locast is little more than a front for the cable companies to get around the retransmission fees. Locast alleges it doesn't matter who donates to them, they are an independent donation-supported non-profit and are just working to fill in coverage holes that the networks don't wish to address.


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

Mikeguy said:


> I understand it but, sigh. I wonder where this entire mess will be in 50 years.


There will probably no longer be "free" OTA (well, except for the shopping channels), as everything will be a subscription, and the frequencies previously used for linear TV broadcasting will have been reallocated to 9G pico-cells.


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

PSU_Sudzi said:


> Was only a matter of time.


And the one group that will win (big) is the lawyers, as this will likely (just as with Aereo) end up going all the way to SCOTUS, unless short circuited by one/more of the proposals currently walking the empty halls of congress looking for someone to care.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

gary.buhrmaster said:


> There will probably no longer be "free" OTA (well, except for the shopping channels), as everything will be a subscription, and the frequencies previously used for linear TV broadcasting will have been reallocated to 9G pico-cells.


Just as free OTA is coming back and leading the cord cutting revolution, hardly coincidental. Kinda of makes you ashamed to live in a country where the people exist for the soul purpose to be robbed by a bunch of well connected slim balls.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Charles R said:


> If it was _clear-cut_ they wouldn't sue. Don't like carriage fees sure have someone give away their product for free. Yes it's a product and yes carriage fees are fundamental to the companies. Giving away a few antennas (to appease a few customers) isn't the same as giving way your entire company. Take away the income and there won't be the same product to give away.


One thing that is clear cut is that if you use Locast, you don't have to go to the trouble of buying and setting up an antenna which has a varying cost to the consumer depending on location technical ability. The local station is required to provide the broadcast for free over the air. Companies are profiting from the sale of antennas. Locast is providing a service that replaces the cost of an antenna to the consumer. Locast should be entitled to profit from their antenna alternative service.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

tapokata said:


> ...It's also the primary reason why PBS locals are part of any OTT package currently offered, as the ownership rights of much of the content is not controlled by PBS or the local PBS affiliate.


Actually, that has just taken an interesting turn:
PBS Partners with YouTube TV | PBS About

As far as the Locast thing goes, I think AT&T's donation was the primary reason a lawsuit finally got filed after a long period of inaction. I also think Locast will lose because of this. Puts their non-profit status on very shaky ground.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

shwru980r said:


> Locast is providing a service that replaces the cost of an antenna to the consumer. Locast should be entitled to profit from their antenna alternative service.


That's no different than buying stolen merchandise on a street corner... since they are saving you money they should be entitled to a profit.  Actually I think the "fight" is more or less directly related to who owns the rights to the broadcast and if and when they are null and void.

My thinking is it's simply a product and as such the owner should be able to decide how it is distributed. Obviously some "do-gooders" have stepped in and muddied the waters based on what was relevant at the time which to a large degree doesn't address what's relevant today or the future.


----------



## schatham (Mar 17, 2007)

realityboy said:


> AT&T is paying (through a donation) $500,000 to make local channels available to its customers without paying the content providers.
> 
> Getting support from AT&T and Dish may be what sinks Locast.


This is a big issue for them,


----------



## schatham (Mar 17, 2007)

Charles R said:


> My thinking is it's simply a product and as such the owner should be able to decide how it is distributed.


They use public airwaves, so why should the networks get to use that for free.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

schatham said:


> They use public airwaves, so why should the networks get to use that for free.


They don't get anything for free... they pay taxes, licensing and many other expenses. Although airwaves being _public_ is a whole different debate. Just because you drive a truck on the interstate I don't think anyone should be able to steal the contents.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

What's being stolen here? The broadcasters put programming on the airwaves in the hope that you won't leave the room during commercials. In the old days giving more people the opportunity to view the programs was a good thing.

Now get off my lawn.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

pdhenry said:


> What's being stolen here?
> 
> Now get off my lawn.


I'll respond with the old saying... "If you have to ask, you'll never know." Which means I'm done here.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

Charles R said:


> They don't get anything for free... they pay taxes, licensing and many other expenses. Although airwaves being _public_ is a whole different debate. Just because you drive a truck on the interstate I don't think anyone should be able to steal the contents.


Maybe not "free" but they get what is effectively a massive taxpayer subsidy to be permitted the exclusive use of frequencies over a geographic area, shutting out competitors and the ability to broadcast wirelessly to a large audience. And it doesn't cost them nearly as much as those slices of spectrum go for in an open bidding process or what it would cost to string up wires all over town like the cable and phone companies have done.

I have no problem with them making money, far from it. But I do have a problem with them double-dipping. If they want to do free over the air broadcasts, they need to fill in their reception gaps or allow others to do so for them. If they want to be subscription-only services, fine. Go be a subscription-only service and let someone else make better use of those frequencies. Pick *one*.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Even if I’m giving away something for free, if someone else is taking it and making a profit, I want my cut.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Charles R said:


> That's no different than buying stolen merchandise on a street corner... since they are saving you money they should be entitled to a profit.  Actually I think the "fight" is more or less directly related to who owns the rights to the broadcast and if and when they are null and void.
> 
> My thinking is it's simply a product and as such the owner should be able to decide how it is distributed. Obviously some "do-gooders" have stepped in and muddied the waters based on what was relevant at the time which to a large degree doesn't address what's relevant today or the future.


The Broadcast channel isn't paying the network for the content. Citizens are supposed to be able to watch OTA TV for free. Nothing is being stolen.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

realityboy said:


> Even if I'm giving away something for free, if someone else is taking it and making a profit, I want my cut.


I think a better analogy would be--if you're performing in a public park (and are compensated by sponsors who pay you per eyeball) and somebody starts offering to drive people over to watch and accepts donations to cover gas money, what right do you have to a cut of those donations or making them stop?

Private, ticketed venues are available, but you are choosing to make use of a public one.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

OrangeCrush said:


> I think a better analogy would be--if you're performing in a public park (and are compensated by sponsors who pay you per eyeball) and somebody starts offering to drive people over to watch and accepts donations to cover gas money, what right do you have to a cut of those donations or making them stop?
> 
> Private, ticketed venues are available, but you are choosing to make use of a public one.


I consider driving them to the park so that they can watch equivalent to giving (or selling) them an antenna so they can receive the signal for free.

Broadcasting the performance online for those that can't make it to the park is a bit more questionable.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

shwru980r said:


> The Broadcast channel isn't paying the network for the content. Citizens are supposed to be able to watch OTA TV for free. Nothing is being stolen.


OMG -- local affiliates pay money to the TV networks.

The laws define how citizens are supposed to receive the free signal. They are supposed to use an antenna, an MVPD, or a satellite dish. If the local station wants to set up video on their website, that's fine for their content, but even then they usually have paid ads you have to watch first. Networks provide video content on their websites, but they also usually have paid ads you have to watch first. Locast bypasses that, effectively stealing ad revenue.

Also note that the stations aren't allowed to put network content on their website, just local news and local shows. Think about that -- TV stations aren't allowed to redistribute all the content that they themselves put on the air. Why should Locast be able to do that? They can't -- they're stealing from the networks.

Wave #2 of lawsuits would be MLB, NFL, NHL, etc. It's trivial to bypass the local blackout of your sports team by using a simple Chrome hack. Also note that the the out-of-town affiliate isn't giving you permission to watch their signal.

Finally, Locast is not an independent company. It was founded by a loan from a former Dish executive, another former Dish executive runs it, and they've gotten another large chunk of money from AT&T. AT&T and Dish have incorporated Locast into their services in an obvious attempt to bypass contract negotiations with the networks and their local affiliates.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

realityboy said:


> Broadcasting the performance online for those that can't make it to the park is a bit more questionable.


Maybe, but in this case there's a specific carve-out in the law to allow non-profits to do this.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

BobCamp1 said:


> Locast bypasses that, effectively stealing ad revenue.


Actually, no. Locast still transmits all the ads and with no DVR support they can't be skipped.



> Finally, Locast is not an independent company. It was founded by a loan from a former Dish executive, another former Dish executive runs it, and they've gotten another large chunk of money from AT&T. AT&T and Dish have incorporated Locast into their services in an obvious attempt to bypass contract negotiations with the networks and their local affiliates.


This is the crux of the networks' argument, that Locast is just a front for the cable & satellite companies that want it. The problem with this (for the networks) is that even if it's true and the networks win, it does nothing to prevent another non-profit from doing exactly the same thing and they will now have a court ruling to use as a blueprint so the strategy will only work once.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

OrangeCrush said:


> Maybe, but in this case there's a specific carve-out in the law to allow non-profits to do this.


And I think that was likely ok. Until they started getting donations from AT&T, and AT&T made Locast available to its customers. If they get shutdown, it's the entanglements with AT&T and Dish that cost them.

AT&T to Add Public Service Locast App to DIRECTV & U-Verse Video Platforms


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

realityboy said:


> I consider driving them to the park so that they can watch equivalent to giving (or selling) them an antenna so they can receive the signal for free.
> 
> Broadcasting the performance online for those that can't make it to the park is a bit more questionable.


And I consider any analogy to be a complete waste of time, because there are a bunch of unique laws that only address this specific subject. Nobody can compare this to anything else, because that other thing would be regulated by a separate set of laws.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

realityboy said:


> And I think that was likely ok. Until they started getting donations from AT&T, and AT&T made Locast available to its customers. If they get shutdown, it's the entanglements with AT&T and Dish that cost them.


It is difficult to make that argument without just going on guilt-by-association, which I doubt is a precedent the courts want to set. The network angle is that Locast is just a front for Dish and AT&T and the donation is just one bullet point. If courts struck down Locast on the grounds of not being a _real_ non-profit just because somebody else can benefit from their success, it opens up a major can of worms for nonprofits everywhere.

Just look at how many for-profit companies benefit from their association with, say, the American Heart Association or the Komen Foundation.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

OrangeCrush said:


> Actually, no. Locast still transmits all the ads and with no DVR support they can't be skipped.


You misunderstood (or maybe I wasn't clear). People can also stream the shows on the affiliate/network websites or via other means, which have their own ads. Locast bypasses those ads.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

BobCamp1 said:


> And I consider any analogy to be a complete waste of time, because there are a bunch of unique laws that only address this specific subject.


That'll be left to the lawyers and the court of law, which is happening, just takes a while. But I don't think talking about it online with others is a waste of time, far from it. In the end we all vote for the people who make the laws and understanding situations, making analogies and comparing viewpoints is how we maybe someday get the laws to reflect the way things ought to be. Analogies can be relevant to that discussion because we're not lawyers, at least most of us anyway.

It also counters some of the talking points the networks and cable companies put out to muddy the waters for their own agendas. And they each have very big microphones.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

OrangeCrush said:


> If they want to do free over the air broadcasts, they need to fill in their reception gaps or allow others to do so for them.





shwru980r said:


> Citizens are supposed to be able to watch OTA TV for free.


I guess they should pay for TVs for those who don't have one... identical logic.



OrangeCrush said:


> I think a better analogy would be--if you're performing in a public park (and are compensated by sponsors who pay you per eyeball) and somebody starts offering to drive people over to watch and accepts donations to cover gas money, what right do you have to a cut of those donations or making them stop?


Your right to control how your product is distributed. This example doesn't take into account the involved variables so it doesn't address the issue at hand. Such as lost revenues... which allows them to provide free products.

However using tunnel vision (the above) they should be able to stop at the moment a third-party is distributing their product without permission.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Charles R said:


> I guess they should pay for TVs for those who don't have one... identical logic.


The problem with that is... ?

If they have a business case that provides programming via TVs that aren't stolen from the manufacturer, is your objection reduced to knowing that you paid for your TV and they didn't?


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

OrangeCrush said:


> It also counters some of the talking points the networks and cable companies put out to muddy the waters for their own agendas. And they each have very big microphones.


Locast claims it is an *independent*, non-profit organization. It is in name only. Could Locast have been created and survive if the only money it ever had came from $5 end user donations? I'm pretty sure its biggest donors are profiting from its existence, and that does jeopardize its non-profit status because Locast took the tainted money.

And the court doesn't have to worry about setting a precedent in other areas of society, because it can limit the scope of the ruling to broadcast TV since the set of laws that govern it are unique.

Another round of lawsuits is the affiliates (Sinclair, NexStar, etc.) vs. Locast. Locast needs to do a much better job making sure that people only have access to their local TV stations. NexStar owns the ABC affiliate where I live, but in the next town Sinclair does. If I watch the out-of-town affiliate, I'm watching Sinclair's ads instead of NexStar which hurts NexStar's ad revenue. NexStar pays good money to ABC to be my exclusive local provider of ABC content. Likewise, Sinclair pays the MLB money to be the exclusive provider of NYY baseball.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

OrangeCrush said:


> Just look at how many for-profit companies benefit from their association with, say, the American Heart Association or the Komen Foundation.


First, I'm not picking on you. You're bringing up good points.

Since you like analogies, it's like if a bunch of cardiologists and pharmaceutical companies donated a ton of money to the American Heart Association. The AHA then lowers its guidelines for desired cholesterol levels, recommending that more people receive treatment. And the head of the AHA is a former cardiologist and pharma company executive.

Non-profits generally fall into religious, scientific, research, or educational areas. All four categories imply independence, which is why the preceding paragraph is troubling. And which of these four categories would Locast fall into?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

OrangeCrush said:


> Maybe, but in this case there's a specific carve-out in the law to allow non-profits to do this.





BobCamp1 said:


> First, I'm not picking on you. You're bringing up good points.
> 
> Since you like analogies, it's like if a bunch of cardiologists and pharmaceutical companies donated a ton of money to the American Heart Association. The AHA then lowers its guidelines for desired cholesterol levels, recommending that more people receive treatment. And the head of the AHA is a former cardiologist and pharma company executive.
> 
> Non-profits generally fall into religious, scientific, research, or educational areas. All four categories imply independence, which is why the preceding paragraph is troubling. And which of these four categories would Locast fall into?


That is a question I have: when is a so-called non-profit a "non-profit"? In my past reading, there is a fair amount of fluidity there and subjectivity. And what about, as discussed above, when a non-profit is "used"/encouraged on for profit-bearing reasons? Perhaps the courts will refrain from going down those roads and instead stick to a broad, situation-blind reading.

One further factor that I haven't seen discussed here: Locast can be used, using geo-spoofing (easy enough to do on at least on Chrome), to gain access to broadcast TV in a different market. I don't know if that's a factor to the consideration.


----------



## OrangeCrush (Feb 18, 2016)

Charles R said:


> I guess they should pay for TVs for those who don't have one... identical logic.


Not remotely. They don't have to buy TVs, or antennas, or any of that and I didn't imply that they should. But they do need to put up sufficient broadcasting infrastructure to reach a reasonable number of households within the DMA they've got exclusive broadcast rights in, otherwise they're squatting on valuable spectrum. The law also allows the government and non-profit third parties to fill in spectrum gaps with digital translators without their permission if they follow certain rules.



BobCamp1 said:


> Locast claims it is an *independent*, non-profit organization. It is in name only. Could Locast have been created and survive if the only money it ever had came from $5 end user donations? I'm pretty sure its biggest donors are profiting from its existence, and that does jeopardize its non-profit status because Locast took the tainted money.
> 
> And the court doesn't have to worry about setting a precedent in other areas of society, because it can limit the scope of the ruling to broadcast TV since the set of laws that govern it are unique.


Well, that's the core allegation in the lawsuit. If they're just a sham or a front for a satellite company, then they could lose on those grounds, but the donation from AT&T alone isn't enough otherwise it would implicate other non-profits that accept donations from for-profit companies that benefit from their activities. The set of laws that govern broadcast TV are unique, but the ones that govern non-profits and donations aren't which is why I don't think the donation argument is going to work. The Dish connection _might _but it's going to be a hard sell for the allegation that Locast is a sham company.

Financially, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be able to survive on $5/mo donations. Most of the cost is upfront setup in a new DMA. Ongoing maintenance, bandwidth, hosting, power, etc. is probably more than covered by the $5. The big donations just let them move in to new DMAs. I know nothing of their actual financial situation, but it doesn't strike me as untenable.



BobCamp1 said:


> Another round of lawsuits is the affiliates (Sinclair, NexStar, etc.) vs. Locast. Locast needs to do a much better job making sure that people only have access to their local TV stations. NexStar owns the ABC affiliate where I live, but in the next town Sinclair does. If I watch the out-of-town affiliate, I'm watching Sinclair's ads instead of NexStar which hurts NexStar's ad revenue. NexStar pays good money to ABC to be my exclusive local provider of ABC content. Likewise, Sinclair pays the MLB money to be the exclusive provider of NYY baseball.


I'm not sure how much they need to worry. I don't use the service so I can't say how robust their geofencing system is, but if it's easily defeated they can always add more measures if they're not up to snuff. All streaming services face the same challenge and it hasn't really been an issue as long as they're making some sort of sincere effort.



BobCamp1 said:


> Since you like analogies, it's like if a bunch of cardiologists and pharmaceutical companies donated a ton of money to the American Heart Association. The AHA then lowers its guidelines for desired cholesterol levels, recommending that more people receive treatment. And the head of the AHA is a former cardiologist and pharma company executive.
> 
> Non-profits generally fall into religious, scientific, research, or educational areas. All four categories imply independence, which is why the preceding paragraph is troubling. And which of these four categories would Locast fall into?


Similar things can and do happen, there are all sorts of conflicts of interest that arise with nonprofits in those sorts of situations but Locast can make an argument that it's performing a public service to fill in coverage gaps, that isn't necessarily a conflict of interest. They're doing precisely what they've set out to do.

As far as those categories go, I think you're thinking of charities. Non-profits are much broader and can be social clubs, trade associations, political advocacy organizations, agricultural groups, all sorts of things. Locast claims it's a sports fan club, but I don't think it really matters. It could just as easily be a political advocacy organization using its service to challenge whether broadcaster's use of spectrum is in the public interest--which, about ten seconds of reading up on the guy who put it together tells me is probably more accurate.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

OrangeCrush said:


> Non-profits are much broader and can be social clubs, trade associations, political advocacy organizations, agricultural groups, all sorts of things. Locast claims it's a sports fan club, but I don't think it really matters. It could just as easily be a political advocacy organization using its service to challenge whether broadcaster's use of spectrum is in the public interest--which, about ten seconds of reading up on the guy who put it together tells me is probably more accurate.


And it can be hard to distinguish between non-profits and for-profits. Just ask the for-profit theaters in New York City about the non-profit theaters, their direct competitors.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Tivo is getting Locast?

Locast Launches a TiVo App - Cord Cutters News

I don't know how much benefit there is for active cable/OTA Tivo subs... maybe if a channel has a weak signal... but it'd be useful for the upcoming dongle.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> Tivo is getting Locast?
> 
> Locast Launches a TiVo App - Cord Cutters News
> 
> I don't know how much benefit there is for active cable/OTA Tivo subs... maybe if one channel or another has a weak signal... but it'd be useful for the upcoming dongle.


That's pretty nice--as you said, very handy for weaker signals, either due to more distant transmitters/stations or geographic challenges. (As well as, if the geo. region can be set by the user . . . .)


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Not surprisingly:


> Back in July ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC filed a lawsuit to shut down Locast. Locast is a free streaming service that offers locals streamed online for free in a handful of markets. Now Locast is fighting back by accusing ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC of antitrust violations.
> 
> In a counter filing Locast's David Goodfriend said the big broadcasters "have colluded to limit the reasonable public access to the over-the-air signals that they are statutorily required to make available for free, and have opted instead to use their copyrights improperly to construct and protect a pay-TV model that forces consumers to forgo over-the-air programming or to pay cable, satellite, and online providers for access to programming that was intended to be free," states Goodfriend's answer and counterclaims.
> 
> "This is classic copyright abuse," Locast said in the court filing. "By limiting access to the over-the-air signals that Plaintiffs have committed to make freely available, and simultaneously using the copyrights in their programming to drive revenue for the local programming that consumers cannot now effectively receive over the air through their pay-TV model, Plaintiffs have colluded and misused copyrights to expand their market power beyond what those copyrights were intended to protect. The payTV providers get rich. Plaintiffs get rich. The public gets fleeced."


Locast Accuses ABC, CBS, FOX, & NBC of Antitrust Violations - Cord Cutters News


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

Mikeguy said:


> Not surprisingly


The only possible surprise was it took as long as it did for the counter suit to be filed (it is not as if they did not expect (or should have expected, if they had competent legal counsel during the formation of their corporation) to get sued in the first place). As to the eventual results, the one thing I can predict with a high degree of certainty is that the lawyers will make a lot of money.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

gary.buhrmaster said:


> The only possible surprise was it took as long as it did for the counter suit to be filed (it is not as if they did not expect (or should have expected, if they had competent legal counsel during the formation of their corporation) to get sued in the first place). As to the eventual results, the one thing I can predict with a high degree of certainty is that the lawyers will make a lot of money.


Just as a legal/procedural matter, there really wasn't a delay in the countersuit: federal law (this is a federal lawsuit) allows 21 days post-service to respond to a lawsuit complaint, extended to 60 days (or 90, if the papers are sent to a defendant outside of the U.S.) if formal service has been waived--the complaint here only was filed on July 31. Not to mention, extensions of time are common.


----------



## gary.buhrmaster (Nov 5, 2015)

Mikeguy said:


> Just as a legal/procedural matter, there really wasn't a delay in the countersuit


I am not suggesting the countersuit is late, but only that they (Locast) did not try to obtain a declarative judgement early in their entire process to affirm their rights since they certainly should have expected a lawsuit. Of course, in the larger picture, none of this is going to get resolved anytime soon (maybe in a few years we might get clarity).


----------

