# Locast countersues broadcasters



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Locast has now countersued the big four broadcasters. One of the points raised is what I've been saying from the beginning, in that the ota signals have, particularly through the recent 'repack' of frequency changes, been significantly power reduced in order to severely limit ota reception so that consumers are forced into buying expensive cable or satellite packages to recieve their 'local' network stations. 

In my case, where my dma extends over 500 miles from end to end out in the far west, 'repacked' stations have reduced their power from >4megawatts to under 250kilowatts, which means 'deep fringe' rooftop antennas are required even in the stations urban coverage, forget about the suburbs or countryside.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

That is an easy claim to refute. Just pull up the coverage maps from the FCC. Do a complete comparison between the old and the new for each station they claim has reduced power to reduce coverage. "Effective Radiated Power" is not the only number that defines how far a station's signal can reach. It sounds like Locast is looking for a court that does not understand broadcast technology.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

I don't think Locast needs to look much further than the federal law that allows non-profits to retransmit OTA signals without paying retrans fees. If the networks want to contest SFCNY's non-profit status, their argument is with the IRS, not Locast.

17 U.S. Code § 111 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of broadcast programming by cable (section (a)(5))

https://www.locast.org/app/uploads/2019/01/IRS-Letter-501c3.pdf


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

That is more of an issue for the broadcaster's suit against Locast (claiming that Locast is violating copyright). The claim that broadcasters are intentionally reducing their coverage areas is a separate issue.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Yes, I wasn't clear in my post that I don't think Locast needed to take that approach in their counter suit since federal law does seem to be on their side.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

James Long said:


> That is an easy claim to refute. Just pull up the coverage maps from the FCC. Do a complete comparison between the old and the new for each station they claim has reduced power to reduce coverage. "Effective Radiated Power" is not the only number that defines how far a station's signal can reach. It sounds like Locast is looking for a court that does not understand broadcast tech


What a load of ****. I've been a broadcast engineer for almost 50 years, in and out of government and with 20 years as a manufacturers representative. I was recalled out of retirement 3 years ago to help with setting up teams of installers and engineers to field the recent/ongoing fcc 'repack'. Broadcasters are using it almost exclusively to ramp down the signal coverage, period. And the next step will be atsc 3.0, which although they will be required to maintain 1.0 comparability for 5 years, after that they will be able to use 3.0 encryption to close ota transmissions to non-paying customers, completing the transition of the 'public' airwaves to private, 'pay cable'. By 2030 it will be complete.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Prove it. In a court of law. That is the challenge.

BTW: The FCC rules would need to be changed before OTA becomes 100% encrypted.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

Just like the rules were changed to repeal Fortnightly and cause this unfair mess in the first place. 

Big Media always gets what it wants.


----------



## Barry in Conyers (Jan 14, 2008)

SamC said:


> Just like the rules were changed to repeal Fortnightly and cause this unfair mess in the first place.
> 
> Big Media always gets what it wants.


It is amazing what some carefully targeted "campaign donations" can achieve.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

I'd like to see what these ATSC 3.0 boxes look like, and hopefully all channels for a local market can be received with the same box (not each station group using it's own, incompatible one). But I agree with James about at least the main channel (usually the -01 subchannel) will need to remain unencrypted.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

scooper said:


> But I agree with James about at least the main channel (usually the -01 subchannel) will need to remain unencrypted.


Big Media does not care about what you and I "need". Big Media cares about $$$$$$$$$.

In the post-Fortnightly system, OTA has been the loophole. Big Media has figured out how to make most of us pay for what was and should always be free, local TV. But the loophole, which with cord cutting is probably growing (if you dump traditional linear TV for pay internet services, and live close enough to the towers, no reason not to get the networks free OTA) . Big Media hates that, of course. The technology for scrambling OTA exists, and it is only a matter of time before Big Media gets the rules changed to force everyone to pay.

At best, they will have one "free" channel, but it will not be the traditional *.1 of NBC, ABC, etc., but rather something like MeTV or Comet, with local news and weather alerts tossed in.

Local TV should be free.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

SamC said:


> Big Media does not care about what you and I "need". Big Media cares about $$$$$$$$$.
> 
> In the post-Fortnightly system, OTA has been the loophole. Big Media has figured out how to make most of us pay for what was and should always be free, local TV. But the loophole, which with cord cutting is probably growing (if you dump traditional linear TV for pay internet services, and live close enough to the towers, no reason not to get the networks free OTA) . Big Media hates that, of course. The technology for scrambling OTA exists, and it is only a matter of time before Big Media gets the rules changed to force everyone to pay.
> 
> ...


Any changes would have to include a fundamental change in the FCC license terms to eliminate the public service requirements.


----------



## SamC (Jan 20, 2003)

I know of nothing that requires the “public service” requirements be on the major network affiliated feed. Say a station is currently this:

.1 NBC, which is where the local news, and other such is found as well.
.2 Me
.3 Comet
.4 Stadium

So they switch .1 and .2. .1 is now the worthless Me channel, with some local news and such. .2 is now NBC, scrambled and behind a pay wall.

It is what Big Media wants.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SamC said:


> So they switch .1 and .2. .1 is now the worthless Me channel, with some local news and such. .2 is now NBC, scrambled and behind a pay wall.
> 
> It is what Big Media wants.


There is nothing stopping channels from doing that today. It would be easier if there was a shared type of encryption (one box for all or tuners built in to TVs instead of needing to get the right box for each station). But one free channel plus fill the rest with private content has been legal since day one of DTV.

And yet no station has done that with the major networks. Where encrypted channels have been offered they have been "cable" channels.

I do not believe that the push to charge for major networks OTA is as strong as you suggest.


----------



## AngryManMLS (Jan 30, 2014)

My market had Airbox available on our Ion station until they ceased operations a few years back.


----------

