# Locast gets sued by major OTA Broadcasters



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Suit filed in southern district of NY against sports fans coalition, which is the group which started locast. The networks are claiming that since locast accepted a monetary gift from at&t, that makes it a commercial service.

There are all sorts of arguments, back and forth, but I would like to see how the broadcasters can explain why stations that transmitted 4MegaWatts before Congress changed the law allowing them to charge cable and satellite companies to carry their signals have now ramped down their over-the-air signals to 200 watts and lower. 'Free' TV for those within a couple of miles of the transmitter tower.

There is a bill in Congress to eliminate the ruling allowing these fees, but has zero chance of getting through the minority (russian) controlled senate.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

There are franchise agreements in place with the "network" stations also that means someone "owns" the rights to broadcast in a certain area - so they can sell the service to cable companies but.. Similar to car manufactures sell franchises to local deals which is why you can't buy cars online (Tesla is fighting this) I'm not a lawyer but...


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Only in a couple of states with Tesla (Texas being the #1 example). And there are states where local communities can ban all sat dishes as well as outdoor ota antennas (I live in one, Washington State), and have lived in both a community that banned both (I had a home where the floor plan and foliage allowed me to hide my DirecTV dish unless one was a peeping Tom, but no way i could put up an ota antenna), and my current community which allows dbs dishes but bans outdoor antennas, which means at some 90 miles from my dma broadcast towers and not being on the top of any hills, means zero reception.


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

Actually, they aren't allowed to ban sat dishes and OTA antennas. You can fight such bans. See Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

As long as the OTA antenna is for local channels. And less than 1 meter in diameter.
And two exceptions in OTARD are designated historical districts and safety concerns (e.g, no dish on a fire escape if it impedes egress).

But other than that, entities can't ban antennas on your property. Read the link that jsk posted.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

1948GG said:


> Only in a couple of states with Tesla (Texas being the #1 example). And there are states where local communities can ban all sat dishes as well as outdoor ota antennas (I live in one, Washington State), and have lived in both a community that banned both (I had a home where the floor plan and foliage allowed me to hide my DirecTV dish unless one was a peeping Tom, but no way i could put up an ota antenna), and my current community which allows dbs dishes but bans outdoor antennas, which means at some 90 miles from my dma broadcast towers and not being on the top of any hills, means zero reception.


As others have said, that's not legally possible. Some communities try to ban them but that can't.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> As others have said, that's not legally possible. Some communities try to ban them but that can't.


What???? You mean the college kid that came by a few years ago pedaling Time Warner Cable that told me my Dish dish was illegal and I could be arrested because TWC has an exclusive franchise for the town was wrong???? 

I told him to come back with the cops and a warrant...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

1948GG said:


> There are all sorts of arguments, back and forth, but I would like to see how the broadcasters can explain why stations that transmitted 4MegaWatts before Congress changed the law allowing them to charge cable and satellite companies to carry their signals have now ramped down their over-the-air signals to 200 watts and lower.


I assume you have an example of a station that went from "4 megawatts" to "200 watts". Or does this come from the same source as "states where local communities can ban all sat dishes as well as outdoor ota antennas"? The state of confusion or exaggeration island?

The station power change statement sounds like knowledge without understanding.

When stations converted to digital they attempted to cover their existing analog footprint with a digital signal. Part of the challenge is defining what their footprint covers. Similar to weather forecasting there are several models to predict where a defined level of signal will be received based on the height of the antenna, the power level and any directional characteristics. 800kW at 1000ft covers a different area than 800kW at 500ft. The power needed to cover an area can also vary based on the channel frequency in use. And digital signals require less power to reach their defined coverage area than analog signals.

One problem is defining a usable signal. In the analog days signals were usable beyond the predicted coverage. The predicted coverage was used for legal purposes (for example, a defined coverage area for protecting copyright) but the actual signal was "usable" beyond the prediction. People would watch an analog signal with a little static far outside the predicted coverage and not know that they were not "covered" by that station's signal. Digital signals do not behave the same way. One does not get static, they get dropouts and glitches. And in a world where people expect pristine perfect HD images via cable, satellite or streaming, they are less likely to accept glitches than their parents accepted "a little static".

Following the accepted coverage prediction models, most digital stations meet or exceed their previous analog coverage areas. However the predictions are based on having an unobstructed outdoor antenna at a certain height. Local conditions such as indoor or low mounted antennas, neighboring buildings and trees can interfere with the predictions. Such interference has always existed ... cranking up the power of the station to "4 megawatts" isn't the solution.

Others have responded to the OTA antenna claim - OTARD is a federal protection which covers OTA, satellite and broadband antennas. While there are limits, arbitrarily banning all satellite or OTA antennas is not allowed.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

NYDutch said:


> What???? You mean the college kid that came by a few years ago pedaling Time Warner Cable that told me my Dish dish was illegal and I could be arrested because TWC has an exclusive franchise for the town was wrong????
> 
> I told him to come back with the cops and a warrant...


Oh I'd have had fun with that kid. Ridiculous


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Those who doubt Washington State laws allowing local govt banning both 1m dbs dishes and ota rooftop antennas need to go to the RCW codes (revised codes of washington) and you'll find that indeed those bans have been upheld by both the state supreme court and by the Seattle Federal Court. The feds have refused over the last 25+ years to take it to the Supremes, so we're stuck. These are DEED Restrictions, completely allowed by both state and federal law. When you move into these communities, you are by state law presented with a list if banned items, which you have to sign, or you can't take possession on the property. 

Do all communities have bans? NO. When I first retired in 2002 I moved right between two such communities and immediately put up a rooftop antenna (actually 3) and so was ready for the digital transition. These bans are a fact of life here, like front licence plates on cars that a large percentage of Boeing folks moving from PA plants adamantly refuse to put on their cars. I live a good 50 miles from the nearest plant, but see several cars every day without them, and the local cops seem to give them a pass unless the discovery something serious.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

So much for the Locast topic.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

1948GG said:


> Those who doubt Washington State laws allowing local govt banning both 1m dbs dishes and ota rooftop antennas need to go to the RCW codes (revised codes of washington) and you'll find that indeed those bans have been upheld by both the state supreme court and by the Seattle Federal Court. The feds have refused over the last 25+ years to take it to the Supremes, so we're stuck. These are DEED Restrictions, completely allowed by both state and federal law. When you move into these communities, you are by state law presented with a list if banned items, which you have to sign, or you can't take possession on the property.
> 
> Do all communities have bans? NO. When I first retired in 2002 I moved right between two such communities and immediately put up a rooftop antenna (actually 3) and so was ready for the digital transition. These bans are a fact of life here, like front licence plates on cars that a large percentage of Boeing folks moving from PA plants adamantly refuse to put on their cars. I live a good 50 miles from the nearest plant, but see several cars every day without them, and the local cops seem to give them a pass unless the discovery something serious.


I looked and couldn't find anything saying the sort. Did you have a specific rule number to point to? I did see on several other things very specific wording of these laws are enforceable except when in conflict with federal law which has precedence

And this is nothing like requiring license plates on the front of your cars which many states due including California. There is no federal law or regulation saying you don't have to put plates on the front of the car. ThAt is left to the states to regulate.

But OTARD is very clear and protects an individuals rights to receive over the air signals and small dishes in part for emergencies reasons on their property.

The only thing I can think of is if this is an issue in apartments which are not covered by otard. Only private property is.

This is HOAs run amok it seems to me. Which we hear about all over and when push comes to shove the owner always wins and the HOAs lose.

I do find info on local communities fighting wireless antennas and such and that's a different animal.

As far as Locast... it seems like their biggest argument is they got their startup money from a for profit company. Well isn't that a donation? Should be interesting to follow.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> This is HOAs run amok it seems to me. Which we hear about all over and when push comes to shove the owner always wins and the HOAs lose.
> 
> I do find info on local communities fighting wireless antennas and such and that's a different animal.


My HOA tried to require pre-approval and a fee for DBS dishes. The FCC told them that was illegal.

WRT to the wireless antennas, does this change to OTARD have any effect on that?


> On October 25, 2000, the Commission further amended the rule so that it applies to customer-end antennas that receive and transmit fixed wireless signals. This amendment became effective on May 25, 2001.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

1948GG said:


> Those who doubt Washington State laws allowing local govt banning both 1m dbs dishes and ota rooftop antennas need to go to the RCW codes (revised codes of washington) and you'll find that indeed those bans have been upheld by both the state supreme court and by the Seattle Federal Court.


Here is the link to the RCWs: Revised Code of Washington (RCW) But I can't find anything like you describe.

Can you provide a direct link to what you're saying?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'm trying not to cringe ...

There are many misconceptions being put forth in this thread both in support and against OTARD. 
1) OTARD is not carte blanche ... I have seen that mistake in previous threads. OTARD does not allow a consumer to install any antenna any where at any time.
2) OTARD covers TV antennas, satellite antennas and broadband antennas. The antenna must be one meter or less. There is no limit in OTARD as to the number of antennas (the limit is the vague "necessary to receive the services"). If you can get all of your services on one antenna there would be no need for a second antenna and the second antenna would not be protected. But if you *need* a satellite dish, and OTA antenna and a broadband dish or antenna all three are protected. You could even get a second dish antenna if it was needed to receive your programming package.
3) OTARD covers renters ... so people who own, lease or rent are covered under the law. Owners generally have more control over their property (HOA and "deed restrictions" can affect that control) but there is a long list in OTARD of what can and cannot be restricted - and that list applies whether you own or rent or whether the home is a stand alone building or an apartment.
4) OTARD is very limited when it comes to "exclusive use" vs "shared" properties. That is where OTARD usually fails to protect the consumer (and succeeds in allowing the neighbor to be protected). If the HOA defines the roof and the exterior of the building as "shared use" the HOA gets to decide whether or not an antenna is allowed. "Exclusive use" areas such as balconies and patios are generally protected as long as the antenna remains inside the "exclusive use" area. Apartments and condominium residents may run in to an issue where no wall penetrations are allowed ... and wall penetrations are not protected by OTARD. So yes, you can place your antenna on your "exclusive use" balcony but no, you can't drill a hole to get the cable into your living space. (Flat cables run through doors help with this issue.)

A state law allowing communities to follow a federal law would be strange. Not unheard of (for example, states that define their minimum wage to be the Federal minimum wage - it is irrelevant since the Federal minimum wage would apply if there were no state law or if the state law specified a lower wage). Typically state laws work in areas that are not covered by Federal law (such as setting a higher state minimum wage ... perfectly legal since a higher wage would not violate the Federal minimum).

Any state law would either need to 1) mirror OTARD or 2) be less restrictive on the consumer than OTARD ... for example, a state may write a law that allows dishes up to 4 meters and a list of restrictions. Or a state law allowing penetrations or placement outside "exclusive use" areas. As long as the law doesn't stop consumers from installing dishes protected by OTARD a state law could be useful.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

trh said:


> My HOA tried to require pre-approval and a fee for DBS dishes. The FCC told them that was illegal.
> 
> WRT to the wireless antennas, does this change to OTARD have any effect on that?


The wireless thing right now is about att and sprint etc putting up transmitting antennas...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> The wireless thing right now is about att and sprint etc putting up transmitting antennas...


Commercial antennas (for example, antennas on buildings and towers on the other end of a home connection) would not be protected by OTARD.
Only the consumer antennas would be protected.

(In a wireless network, both ends should be transmitting.)


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

Agreed. Folks seem to think that federal laws or regulations are equally applied to all 50 states and territories, and nothing couple be further from the truth. The Sdny could rule against locast yet they could countersue in the ninth circuit (sf) and continue to operate in the west. Even if the Supremes ruled against them there could be additional fights, just look to 'gun rights' fights for how convoluted things could become.

These dish and antenna laws/regulations are rendered bull and void by deed restrictions, pure and simple. States rights. Argument ended.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

1948GG said:


> Agreed. Folks seem to think that federal laws or regulations are equally applied to all 50 states and territories, and nothing couple be further from the truth. The Sdny could rule against locast yet they could countersue in the ninth circuit (sf) and continue to operate in the west. Even if the Supremes ruled against them there could be additional fights, just look to 'gun rights' fights for how convoluted things could become.
> 
> *These dish and antenna laws/regulations are rendered bull and void by deed restrictions, pure and simple. States rights. Argument ended.*


OTARD over-rides deed restrictions on private property. Now if the condo association owns the walls, the roof etc., that's where it gets a little muddy.

You keep giving us generalities to the law telling us to find it, but you haven't provided a link to any law or court documents backing up your interpretation. 
Please cite the Washington State law (provide a link to specific RCW) or legislation reference numbers of Court documents. Many of us would be willing to read them.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

At the bottom of the OTARD page there are a number of court cases and declaratory rulings where the FCC has told HOAs and cities they have to comply with OTARD regulations.

Here is a recent article about Philadelphia and their attempt to implement their own regulations: Satellite-dish ban in Philly struck down by FCC decision


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

1948GG said:


> Agreed. Folks seem to think that federal laws or regulations are equally applied to all 50 states and territories, and nothing couple be further from the truth. The Sdny could rule against locast yet they could countersue in the ninth circuit (sf) and continue to operate in the west. Even if the Supremes ruled against them there could be additional fights, just look to 'gun rights' fights for how convoluted things could become.
> 
> These dish and antenna laws/regulations are rendered bull and void by deed restrictions, pure and simple. States rights. Argument ended.


No, guns rights and the like is not at all like a fcc regulation. Doesn't stop people from claiming that till they get called on it though, which according to you is a lot of people in Washington. It's not a states rights issue either in this case.


----------

