# Locast Death Watch



## b4pjoe

Locast loses legal protections that keep its local TV streaming service alive

Only a matter of time now.


----------



## MysteryMan

Doesn't surprise me.


----------



## NYDutch

The summary judgement just means the case will go to trial likely followed by appeals as needed by either side. Locast isn't done yet, but there's no question this decision is not good for them...


----------



## harsh

If there are 3 million donors, that's $15 million a month and that would seem to significantly exceed "non-profit" conditions.


----------



## Steveknj

This puts a definite glitch in my "cutting the cord" strategy of using DirecTV Stream as my primary source of content, supplemented by Locast for the locals I don't get, CW and PBS. I need to figure something out before I wind up going back to DirecTV Sat and get locked in for 2 more years. I'm playing with the idea of putting an antenna in my attic and using the existing cabling to hook it to the TV. Maybe that's a weekend project. We'll see. Won't do anything drastic until the whole thing is settled one way or the other.


----------



## lparsons21

Steveknj said:


> This puts a definite glitch in my "cutting the cord" strategy of using DirecTV Stream as my primary source of content, supplemented by Locast for the locals I don't get, CW and PBS. I need to figure something out before I wind up going back to DirecTV Sat and get locked in for 2 more years. I'm playing with the idea of putting an antenna in my attic and using the existing cabling to hook it to the TV. Maybe that's a weekend project. We'll see. Won't do anything drastic until the whole thing is settled one way or the other.


I got an outdoor antenna that I mounted to my old Dish mount and use the coax that was for Dish. Works fine. Got an Amazon Recast and also a AirTV Anwhere OTA DVR. Works real well and the AirTV integrates with the Sling TV app.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

Steveknj said:


> This puts a definite glitch in my "cutting the cord" strategy of using DirecTV Stream as my primary source of content, supplemented by Locast for the locals I don't get, CW and PBS. I need to figure something out before I wind up going back to DirecTV Sat and get locked in for 2 more years. I'm playing with the idea of putting an antenna in my attic and using the existing cabling to hook it to the TV. Maybe that's a weekend project. We'll see. Won't do anything drastic until the whole thing is settled one way or the other.


Have you tried the Local BTV app?

I assume you are in NJ by your userhandle, and BTV services both New York and Philly and has PBS stations. (It is a recent addition as a of year or so ago, as initially it lacked PBS stations). The parent company negotiated with the stations for transmission, unlike Locast. It's spotty with CW and MyNetwork, and doesn't have the Weigel owned networks (MeTV, Decades, etc.) but it has agreements for Cozi, getTV and Antenna TV broadcasts from the local markets. And a few digitnets like NewsNet, a low budget news network, and California Music Channel, even though neither are transmitted over the air in Philly.

When I checked it more lately, it also now permits recording on Cozi (from my NBC affiliate WCAU). Originally, Cozi was the only network where there was a message that recording via its cloud DVR wasn't permitting.

Eventually, BTV plans on charging, but right now, it's all free, and has a cloud DVR as well.

LocalBTV - Free Local TV


----------



## Steveknj

rnbmusicfan said:


> Have you tried the Local BTV app?
> 
> I assume you are in NJ by your userhandle, and BTV services both New York and Philly and has PBS stations. (It is a recent addition as a of year or so ago, as initially it lacked PBS stations). The parent company negotiated with the stations for transmission, unlike Locast. It's spotty with CW and MyNetwork, and doesn't have the Weigel owned networks (MeTV, Decades, etc.) but it has agreements for Cozi, getTV and Antenna TV broadcasts from the local markets. And a few digitnets like NewsNet, a low budget news network, and California Music Channel, even though neither are transmitted over the air in Philly.
> 
> When I checked it more lately, it also now permits recording on Cozi (from my NBC affiliate WCAU). Originally, Cozi was the only network where there was a message that recording via its cloud DVR wasn't permitting.
> 
> Eventually, BTV plans on charging, but right now, it's all free, and has a cloud DVR as well.
> 
> LocalBTV - Free Local TV


That's interesting, never heard of it, but, still missing all our network locals including the one main one missing from DirecTV Stream, WPIX (our local CW).


----------



## Davenlr

Steveknj said:


> I'm playing with the idea of putting an antenna in my attic and using the existing cabling to hook it to the TV.


Televes Dat Boss is one of the highly recommended antennas if you are in a "iffy" location.


----------



## Davenlr

harsh said:


> If there are 3 million donors, that's $15 million a month and that would seem to significantly exceed "non-profit" conditions.


Check out the bank account of Joel Osteen. I dont think the amount in the account matters to being a non-profit. Its how the money gets spent.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> If there are 3 million donors, that's $15 million a month and that would seem to significantly exceed "non-profit" conditions.


Many failing commercial companies are non-profit, but the difference between "for profit" and "not for profit" is what matters. Locast claims they are "not for profit".


----------



## Mark Holtz

Time to get a SiliconDust HDHomeRun Flex 4K.... maybe. When I moved to my Texas home, I had two rooms hooked up with an antenna backup, but alas, not my home office.


----------



## NYDutch

harsh said:


> If there are 3 million donors, that's $15 million a month and that would seem to significantly exceed "non-profit" conditions.


And exactly how little would it take be "non-profit" in your opinion? The non-profit Red Cross has a ~$3 billion annual budget. 501(c)(3) non-profits are allowed to show a net profit as long as that profit is not distributed to private individuals or shareholders. Non-profits are allowed to pay reasonable compensation to employees for services rendered. In Locast's case the net profit is used primarily to expand the service to new areas.

Myths About Nonprofits

Inurement Private Benefit Charitable Organizations | Internal Revenue Service


----------



## NR4P

The whole Locast thing is perplexing to me. I understand why Broadcasters were against this type of product back 5 to 10 years but today, it could help them. People are turning off Cable and SAT. And the amount of consumers that are savvy enough to put up a good antenna isn't that high. 

With Locast, I can watch all my locals, in my local area. If I go buy a $100-$200 portable TV and pull up the big telescoping antenna, i can do that in 50% of my home market. So why are broadcasters against letting me stream it on my 6" mobile phone? They have zero interest in OTA ATSC portable TV's hardware sales. 

When I am out of my home market, Locast won't show me my locals. (OK so there are some hacks to do that but the general consumer won't know that. No different than VPN to your home TV box). 

I studied the industry years ago. I understand carriage rules but if I can buy a portable TV and do this, why in the world are broadcasters forcing me to do that and not letting me watch it on my mobile phone when I am in my home market? If I can't, I then switch to Netflix, Hulu, and others and not one of them has a local TV plan with my monthly fees. They lose my eyeballs and eyeballs=ratings. They force me to the competitive services. No CBS, I am not paying for Paramount+ either!


----------



## b4pjoe

NYDutch said:


> And exactly how little would it take be "non-profit" in your opinion? The non-profit Red Cross has a ~$3 billion annual budget. 501(c)(3) non-profits are allowed to show a net profit as long as that profit is not distributed to private individuals or shareholders. Non-profits are allowed to pay reasonable compensation to employees for services rendered. *In Locast's case the net profit is used primarily to expand the service to new areas*


According to the judge that is part of the problem.



> The court found that *Locast's policy of expanding into new markets runs contrary to the aim of a non-profit*, where cash should be used to cover running costs only. Judge Louis Stanton said that the cash raised from Locast's $5-per-month (don't call it a) subscription was being used to bankroll further expansion and earned "far more money from user charges than was necessary."


----------



## b4pjoe

NR4P said:


> The whole Locast thing is perplexing to me. I understand why Broadcasters were against this type of product back 5 to 10 years but today, it could help them. People are turning off Cable and SAT.


To try to keep people from leaving the Cable and Sat plans and keep those carriage fees coming in. Without cable and sat carriage fees those local affiliates are going to lose a lot of money. Not that I feel sorry for them.


----------



## lparsons21

b4pjoe said:


> According to the judge that is part of the problem.


The judge's opinion is bogus IMO, I know of no law or even any policy that claims that a non-profit can't grow into new markets.


----------



## b4pjoe

I'm sure there will be plenty of appeals to see if it is bogus or not. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.


----------



## harsh

Davenlr said:


> I dont think the amount in the account matters to being a non-profit. Its how the money gets spent.


What is important is that the money gets spent on something other than lawyers. Building a war chest is often frowned upon.


----------



## NYDutch

harsh said:


> What is important is that the money gets spent on something other than lawyers. Building a war chest is often frowned upon.


If you don't think other non-profits maintain legal funds and lawyers on retainer, as well as paying lobbyists to push for or against pertinent legislation, think again. As long as they're not distributing profits to private individuals/shareholders, it's pretty much permitted under the existing IRS 501(c)(3) rules.


----------



## NYDutch

lparsons21 said:


> The judge's opinion is bogus IMO, I know of no law or even any policy that claims that a non-profit can't grow into new markets.


I agree, and the judge saying 17 USC 111(c)(5) doesn't specifically allow expansion is definitely bogus in my non-legal opinion since it doesn't specifically prohibit it either. It's likely most or all non-profits started out fairly small and expanded as the need for their services and/or products grew. As I've said elsewhere, PBS didn't hit the ground running with ~330 stations...


----------



## James Long

NR4P said:


> I understand why Broadcasters were against this type of product back 5 to 10 years but today, it could help them.


Broadcasters want to get paid. Most want $ per subscriber when someone rebroadcasts their signal. Even if refusing to have their signal carried loses viewers, they would rather be paid. The networks are pushing their affiliates to get paid more and give the networks a bigger cut. Paths that lead to not getting paid (other than their required OTA transmission) are not what most stations want.


----------



## James Long

> The court found that *Locast's policy of expanding into new markets runs contrary to the aim of a non-profit*, where cash should be used to cover running costs only. Judge Louis Stanton said that the cash raised from Locast's $5-per-month (don't call it a) subscription was being used to bankroll further expansion and earned "far more money from user charges than was necessary."


I disagree with the concept that a non-profit cannot expand. As long as they were not repaying investors the financial argument seems weak.

I am surprised that it has taken this long for a court to rule against Locast. Especially with donations and other support from major players such as DISH and DIRECTV.


----------



## Glen_D

NYDutch said:


> In Locast's case the net profit is used primarily to expand the service to new areas.


Since that was the focus of the judge's ruling, I would guess the future expansion of Locast is what is really in jeopardy, more so than continuation of service in existing markets.

If current Locast users are located within reasonable OTA reception distance from their local broadcast transmitters, the loss of the service should not be as much of a problem as it would be for those whose only other option for locals would be a paid Cable, satellite, or streaming service.


----------



## NR4P

b4pjoe said:


> To try to keep people from leaving the Cable and Sat plans and keep those carriage fees coming in. Without cable and sat carriage fees those local affiliates are going to lose a lot of money. Not that I feel sorry for them.





James Long said:


> Broadcasters want to get paid. Most want $ per subscriber when someone rebroadcasts their signal. Even if refusing to have their signal carried loses viewers, they would rather be paid. The networks are pushing their affiliates to get paid more and give the networks a bigger cut. Paths that lead to not getting paid (other than their required OTA transmission) are not what most stations want.


That's old, wrong thinking. People are leaving CATV and SAT every day. In part due to the high retransmission fees. Dish demonstrated that people will opt out. OTA broadcasting has lost a lot of spectrum to Cell and it may continue as their numbers decline. Any business that fights technology becomes a dinosaur.


----------



## Steveknj

NR4P said:


> That's old, wrong thinking. People are leaving CATV and SAT every day. In part due to the high retransmission fees. Dish demonstrated that people will opt out. OTA broadcasting has lost a lot of spectrum to Cell and it may continue as their numbers decline. Any business that fights technology becomes a dinosaur.


Just because it's old, or wrong for users, doesn't make it wrong for the networks. They want to get paid. They don't want broadcasting without permission. It might not make a lot of business sense in 2021, but I don't pretend to completely understand the model. Like a lot of thing around broadcasting which many of their standards were created in first the radio era and later in the early TV era, th

I'm a Locast subscriber and got an email late yesterday where they will no longer include "nag" interruptions for non paid subscribers. The issue they've determined is that it no longer becomes a "donation" when you include these types of nags where you have to pay to get them removed. I can see the court's point. So now a donation becomes completely voluntary (as a donation should be). I will keep donating as I want Locast to succeed, but I no longer have to in order to watch TV uninterrupted.


----------



## NYDutch

Steveknj said:


> Just because it's old, or wrong for users, doesn't make it wrong for the networks. They want to get paid. They don't want broadcasting without permission. It might not make a lot of business sense in 2021, but I don't pretend to completely understand the model. Like a lot of thing around broadcasting which many of their standards were created in first the radio era and later in the early TV era, th
> 
> I'm a Locast subscriber and got an email late yesterday where they will no longer include "nag" interruptions for non paid subscribers. The issue they've determined is that it no longer becomes a "donation" when you include these types of nags where you have to pay to get them removed. I can see the court's point. So now a donation becomes completely voluntary (as a donation should be). I will keep donating as I want Locast to succeed, but I no longer have to in order to watch TV uninterrupted.


Actually, Locast would be completely within the law if they charged reasonable fee to support the operation and maintenance of the service rather than depending on donations. In my opinion, the donations always were voluntary. Want to use the service uninterrupted? Pay up. Don't want to pay up? Don't use the service or put up with the interruptions. Your choice...


----------



## NYDutch

Glen_D said:


> Since that was the focus of the judge's ruling, I would guess the future expansion of Locast is what is really in jeopardy, more so than continuation of service in existing markets.
> 
> If current Locast users are located within reasonable OTA reception distance from their local broadcast transmitters, the loss of the service should not be as much of a problem as it would be for those whose only other option for locals would be a paid Cable, satellite, or streaming service.


In my non-legal opinion, the judge was wrong. His contention that the law doesn't specifically allow expansion of the service fails, I believe, since the law doesn't prohibit expansion either. Since the case is based on a US law, the 10th amendment to the US Constitution comes to mind: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, *nor prohibited by it* to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or *to the people*." (emphasis added).


----------



## texasbrit

Locast has now suspended operations.


----------



## b4pjoe

texasbrit said:


> Locast has now suspended operations.


Yeah that was a fast death watch.


----------



## glrush

From their Twitter page......


[URL='https://twitter.com/LocastOrg']Locast
@LocastOrg[/URL]

As a non-profit, Locast was designed from the very beginning to operate in accordance with the strict letter of the law, but in response to the court's recent rulings, with which we respectfully disagree, we are hereby suspending operations, effective immediately.


----------



## rnbmusicfan

Steveknj said:


> That's interesting, never heard of it, but, still missing all our network locals including the one main one missing from DirecTV Stream, WPIX (our local CW).


Have you tried rabbit ears?

I see that Hulu with Live and YTTV also has WPIX, along with Directv Stream. Local BTV just complements as a free service, with PBS. With exception of YouTubeTV, none of the streaming services have PBS. In Philly, WPHL is missing from Hulu/YTTV. I never understood why Nexstar didn't push for WPHL carriage, when it pushed for NewsNation. WPHL even airs Action News at 10, operated by WPVI, owned by ABC, owned by Disney, yet Hulu with Live, owned by Disney, doesn't have WPHL. Anyways I digress.

But I found if I want to save money over Comcast/FIOS, I have to use multiple app to get the same or more channels.


----------



## Mark Holtz

From Ars Technica:

*Locast's free TV service shuts down after losing copyright ruling
Locast can't use revenue from users to expand into new markets, judge rules.*


> Locast said it is shutting down its TV service, at least for now, in response to its loss in court. "We are suspending operations, effective immediately," Locast said in a message on its homepage. "As a nonprofit, Locast was designed from the very beginning to operate in accordance with the strict letter of the law, but in response to the court's recent rulings, with which we respectfully disagree, we are hereby suspending operations, effective immediately."


FULL ARTICLE HERE


----------



## ziggy29

Seriously, I think if these OTA stations want to play hard ball like this, they need to meet the mission they agreed to when getting a license from the FCC for public airwaves; that is, to work to get their FREE OTA signal reachable to many more people without needing drastic measures (not always possible in apartments or condos, or in terrain).

What I don't understand is how Locast adapted by saying the donation was now voluntary, which would seem to comply with the judge's orders assuming they did not use the donations to expand into new markets, and then suddenly stopped completely. Are they done for good now? Who got in their ear in the less than 24 hours between going all voluntary and stopping entirely? What kind of lawyering was going on? I was logging in to increase my donation this morning to help in the legal fight, only to find out they quit. These stations that hold viewers who can't get OTA hostage need to be reined in. The bottom line is that we now live in the Corporate States of America -- government of, by and for the corporation.


----------



## MysteryMan

texasbrit said:


> Locast has now suspended operations.


I'm not surprised by this either.


----------



## ziggy29

MysteryMan said:


> I'm not surprised by this either.


Nor am I, though I am disappointed. The bottom line is that no matter how Congress intended to allow nonprofits to retransmit these signals, these corporate media empires will fight it in court, every time, and never lose because they have the lawyers and a judiciary handpicked by the politicians they have bought, all the way up to the US Supreme Court. The game is rigged and Corporate America never loses.


----------



## James Long

NYDutch said:


> Actually, Locast would be completely within the law if they charged reasonable fee to support the operation and maintenance of the service rather than depending on donations. In my opinion, the donations always were voluntary. Want to use the service uninterrupted? Pay up. Don't want to pay up? Don't use the service or put up with the interruptions. Your choice...


I wonder if PBS would send me a tote bag if I didn't donate? Charging for access would be an issue in my "non-legal" opinion. But one could probably come up with a long list of not for profit companies where a donation is required prior to receiving whatever service they provide (or at least presented in a way similar to Locast where "if you donate, you get service").



NYDutch said:


> In my non-legal opinion, the judge was wrong. His contention that the law doesn't specifically allow expansion of the service fails, I believe, since the law doesn't prohibit expansion either. Since the case is based on a US law, the 10th amendment to the US Constitution comes to mind: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, *nor prohibited by it* to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or *to the people*." (emphasis added).


I agree with the decision but I don't agree with the logic presented (although all I have seen are media reports, not the actual judge's opinion). Copyright laws and using copyright to allow stations to withhold carriage without paid permission is a situation we are in due to a supreme court opinion that has not been overturned. The intent of the loophole that Locast claimed was not for a company to set up nationwide service (one market at a time) to millions of consumers. The intent was to allow true not for profit entities to provide service on a much smaller scale.

I'll let constitutional scholars fight the constitutional claims. SCOTUS says copyright applies to rebroadcasting TV signals. Congress wrote federal laws that control the rebroadcast of TV signals and allow rebroadcast on a limited basis. If prohibiting Locast from rebroadcasting without permission is unconstitutional then the existing laws preventing every MVPD from rebroadcasting without permission are also unconstitutional.

If this decision gets overturned it will probably be on some technicality (such as the "cannot expand" claim). Not for profits constantly use donations for expansion - adding new sites and services. The only way I see "expansion" as being a limit is due to being outside the intent of the law they are leveraging. The law was not intended to allow for a nationwide system of rebroadcasting local stations. That is what Locast was building, one market at a time.


----------



## Steveknj

rnbmusicfan said:


> Have you tried rabbit ears?
> 
> I see that Hulu with Live and YTTV also has WPIX, along with Directv Stream. Local BTV just complements as a free service, with PBS. With exception of YouTubeTV, none of the streaming services have PBS. In Philly, WPHL is missing from Hulu/YTTV. I never understood why Nexstar didn't push for WPHL carriage, when it pushed for NewsNation. WPHL even airs Action News at 10, operated by WPVI, owned by ABC, owned by Disney, yet Hulu with Live, owned by Disney, doesn't have WPHL. Anyways I digress.
> 
> But I found if I want to save money over Comcast/FIOS, I have to use multiple app to get the same or more channels.


Rabbit ears don't work, I only get a few locals, most don't work. I'm going to try an antenna in the attic and see if that goes. Problem with YTTV, Hulu and most of the others are the RSNs, they don't have them. So if the rabbit ears solution doesn't work, I'll probably head back to DirecTV


----------



## ziggy29

James Long said:


> If this decision gets overturned it will probably be on some technicality (such as the "cannot expand" claim). Not for profits constantly use donations for expansion - adding new sites and services. The only way I see "expansion" as being a limit is due to being outside the intent of the law they are leveraging. The law was not intended to allow for a nationwide system of rebroadcasting local stations. That is what Locast was building, one market at a time.


Do we *know* Congress didn't intend to allow that to happen? Seems to me the idea was to allow signals that are *free* over-the-air to reach people for free when transmitted by an appropriate non-profit. And I don't see where Congress said the non-profit has to be local, market by market. I don't read that in the law.

I was wondering if one way around this could be to break this up into multiple, local non-profits each operating only within their own local market. If you do that, you pretty much eliminate the judge's (IMO questionable) logic here. If you don't allow that, you are pretty clearly violating the intent of Congress to allow for the retransmission by non-profits under at least some set of circumstances.

That said, I guess we don't know the exact intent of Congress, but I do know that these station owners and networks would never NOT try to sue ANY non-profit entity doing this out of existence.



Steveknj said:


> So if the rabbit ears solution doesn't work, I'll probably head back to DirecTV


Which, of course, is exactly what they want -- not only do people often pay $100 a month or more for this, but they can also hold viewers hostage and withhold their programming in order to extort more and more money out of the rebroadcasters.


----------



## James Long

ziggy29 said:


> Seriously, I think if these OTA stations want to play hard ball like this, they need to meet the mission they agreed to when getting a license from the FCC for public airwaves; that is, to work to get their FREE OTA signal reachable to many more people without needing drastic measures (not always possible in apartments or condos, or in terrain).


Can you give a reference to exactly where in their license stations are required to do as you suggest? Stations are required to use their licenses (cannot be off air for more than a year) and are expected to use all of their license (full transmit power as licensed within 10% below or 5% above licensed power, IIRC) but OTA stations are not licensed or required to provide service to X number of people or X% of a defined area. They are licensed to transmit at a certain height and power. As long as they do that without interfering with other licensed services reception is the problem of the viewer. (There are other requirements, such as educational programming, political programming, etc. But I'll confine the statement to how a station is required to use their transmitter.)

Wishing it was different is common. Even I want it to be different. But wishing doesn't change the reality of the situation.



ziggy29 said:


> What I don't understand is how Locast adapted by saying the donation was now voluntary, which would seem to comply with the judge's orders assuming they did not use the donations to expand into new markets, and then suddenly stopped completely. Are they done for good now?


A cease and desist order (restraining order) needs to be followed. They can go back to the judge and say "hey, we have removed the nag screen and our signal is now freely available separate from donation". But they CANNOT continue to operate without the judge changing the order.

Think about it as being pulled over by a police officer for speeding. You're doing 55 in a 25, the police car pulls up behind you, the lights turn on. That tells you to STOP. You don't get to slow down to the speed limit and say "hey, I am now compliant". You STOP and stay stopped until the officer allows you to move again (with their choice of a warning or ticket or arrest - especially for 55 in a 25!). The judge says STOP ... you stop.


----------



## Steveknj

James Long said:


> Can you give a reference to exactly where in their license stations are required to do as you suggest? Stations are required to use their licenses (cannot be off air for more than a year) and are expected to use all of their license (full transmit power as licensed within 10% below or 5% above licensed power, IIRC) but OTA stations are not licensed or required to provide service to X number of people or X% of a defined area. They are licensed to transmit at a certain height and power. As long as they do that without interfering with other licensed services reception is the problem of the viewer. (There are other requirements, such as educational programming, political programming, etc. But I'll confine the statement to how a station is required to use their transmitter.)
> 
> Wishing it was different is common. Even I want it to be different. But wishing doesn't change the reality of the situation.
> 
> A cease and desist order (restraining order) needs to be followed. They can go back to the judge and say "hey, we have removed the nag screen and our signal is now freely available separate from donation". But they CANNOT continue to operate without the judge changing the order.
> 
> Think about it as being pulled over by a police officer for speeding. You're doing 55 in a 25, the police car pulls up behind you, the lights turn on. That tells you to STOP. You don't get to slow down to the speed limit and say "hey, I am now compliant". You STOP and stay stopped until the officer allows you to move again (with their choice of a warning or ticket or arrest - especially for 55 in a 25!). The judge says STOP ... you stop.


On the other hand, if you pay your fine and then only do 25 that would make you compliant from that point on. So, using that analogy, If Locast pays the fine, and now makes donations volutary, wouldn't that mean they can remove the cease and desist order? I do wonder if that's what they are working on.


----------



## phrelin

It's just going to save me some money.

In my lifetime which is quite long, TV stations were to make money on advertising. For those of us who lived (live) in areas that no OTA is available even though the stations claimed us within their Designated Market Area thereby precluding television reception, cable/satellite offered an alternative. But with the advent of streaming that's all out of date.

I supported Locast not because we watched anything except emergency news, but only because of emergency news like right now as California burns up. The problem is, that news is on the internet so who needs local television stations?

If Locast comes back, I'll support them. But I will not directly give a "local" (aka unavailable OTA) station a dime except for KPIX which comes with Paramount+ (formerly CBS All Access).


----------



## b4pjoe

> While technically, the judge hadn't yet ruled that Locast had violated copyright, only that Locast couldn't raise its primary affirmative defense (the service had other defenses), the parties had made an unusual agreement at the start of litigation. _*In return for not seeking hefty financial damages, broadcasters got Locast to agree to an injunction in the event a federal judge had rejected its key defense.*_ Given the court's ruling earlier this week, the broadcasters quickly sought to hold Locast to that promise, and now Locast has bowed to the inevitable.
> 
> "Since portions of its user payments fund Locast's expansion, its charges exceed those 'necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service,' which is the only exemption granted in Section 111 (a) (5)," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton in his order Tuesday.


Interesting that Locast agreed to that.


----------



## TV_Guy

Steveknj said:


> Rabbit ears don't work, I only get a few locals, most don't work. I'm going to try an antenna in the attic and see if that goes. Problem with YTTV, Hulu and most of the others are the RSNs, they don't have them. So if the rabbit ears solution doesn't work, I'll probably head back to DirecTV


YouTube TV does offer SNY. If the Mets are your main team then you might be in business. If you are looking for MSG and YES then Directv Stream is your only streaming option. If you want WPIX just for Yankees games you could see those games on Amazon Prime.


----------



## Steveknj

TV_Guy said:


> YouTube TV does offer SNY. If the Mets are your main team then you might be in business. If you are looking for MSG and YES then Directv Stream is your only streaming option. If you want WPIX just for Yankees games you could see those games on Amazon Prime.


Yankees here, so SNY does me no good. As for WPIX, my son watches all the comic book shows so that's why it's important to have.


----------



## billsharpe

There was a vhf/uhf antenna on the rooftop of our house when we bought it 50 years ago. Over time I replaced the twin-lead with coax and have been receiving excellent OTA pictures from all the local stations. Last time I checked my TV there were over 120 channels available, including the three public channels in the LA area, 28. 50, and 58 plus all their subsidiaries. I also use that antenna for FM reception, since these stations are just above channel 6's frequency.

That said, I am sorry to see Locast give up.


----------



## harsh

NYDutch said:


> If you don't think other non-profits maintain legal funds and lawyers on retainer, as well as paying lobbyists to push for or against pertinent legislation, think again. As long as they're not distributing profits to private individuals/shareholders, it's pretty much permitted under the existing IRS 501(c)(3) rules.


Paying lawyers and lobbyists is fine. It is collecting large amounts of fundage that isn't destined to be spent on something specific that is frowned upon. This is the textbook definition of a "war chest" for businesses.


----------



## NYDutch

harsh said:


> Paying lawyers and lobbyists is fine. It is collecting large amounts of fundage that isn't destined to be spent on something specific that is frowned upon. This is the textbook definition of a "war chest" for businesses.


Planned expansion into under served areas isn't specific enough?


----------



## James Long

17 U.S. Code Section 111 (a) (5)
[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.

That is the peg that Locast hung its hat on. A specific law referring to the specific act that they specifically performed. The charge to recipients is specifically limited. They would need to rely on separate donations for expansion or other costs.

"In 2020, Locast's operating costs were $2.436 million while revenue for the year totaled $4.372 million."
Well over the "actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service".


----------



## TV_Guy

Steveknj said:


> Yankees here, so SNY does me no good. As for WPIX, my son watches all the comic book shows so that's why it's important to have.


A classic streaming dilemma. The antenna idea is good since it gives you flexibility. You want VHF elements since WPIX and WNET are high VHF signals. Another viewing method for PBS is the streaming apps offered by NJ PBS and WNET and WLIW. YouTube TV offers Connecticut PBS and WLIW and WNET in the NY Metro area. With no contracts you could go with Directv Stream during the baseball season and substitute the lower priced YouTube TV during the baseball off-season. There is a possibility that YES will be offered direct to consumer next season but I think it is less likely to be offered than the fully owned Sinclair RSNs.


----------



## NR4P

Steveknj said:


> Just because it's old, or wrong for users, doesn't make it wrong for the networks. They want to get paid. They don't want broadcasting without permission. It might not make a lot of business sense in 2021, but I don't pretend to completely understand the model. Like a lot of thing around broadcasting which many of their standards were created in first the radio era and later in the early TV era, th
> 
> I'm a Locast subscriber and got an email late yesterday where they will no longer include "nag" interruptions for non paid subscribers. The issue they've determined is that it no longer becomes a "donation" when you include these types of nags where you have to pay to get them removed. I can see the court's point. So now a donation becomes completely voluntary (as a donation should be). I will keep donating as I want Locast to succeed, but I no longer have to in order to watch TV uninterrupted.


Here's my point...I can buy an ATSC TV for $100+ and in my local market, receive the channels for free. But I can't do the same thing on my mobile phone because it doesn't have the ATSC chip in it? It comes in via LTE/5G vs ATSC RF so that makes a difference?

And yes I know Locast suspended operations. Too bad


----------



## James Long

I can't pick up ATSC on my car radio. I don't blame the stations (or the government, etc.).


----------



## ziggy29

NR4P said:


> Here's my point...I can buy an ATSC TV for $100+ and in my local market, receive the channels for free. But I can't do the same thing on my mobile phone because it doesn't have the ATSC chip in it? It comes in via LTE/5G vs ATSC RF so that makes a difference?


If there was a market for it, phone makers could put an ATSC tuner into their phones and allow reception of OTA TV through it. Of course, there wouldn't be much of an antenna so you'd probably have to be almost on top of the transmitters...


----------



## vinhmen

James Long said:


> 17 U.S. Code Section 111 (a) (5)
> [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.
> 
> That is the peg that Locast hung its hat on. A specific law referring to the specific act that they specifically performed. The charge to recipients is specifically limited. They would need to rely on separate donations for expansion or other costs.
> 
> "In 2020, Locast's operating costs were $2.436 million while revenue for the year totaled $4.372 million."
> Well over the "actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service".


So what is Locast's motive in providing this service? Are they really doing this out of kindness in their hearts for the poor souls who cannot obtain local broadcasts by any other means? I didn't get that impression during the incessant interruptions for donations during the broadcast.


----------



## James Long

vinhmen said:


> So what is Locast's motive in providing this service? Are they really doing this out of kindness in their hearts for the poor souls who cannot obtain local broadcasts by any other means? I didn't get that impression during the incessant interruptions for donations during the broadcast.


I believe they were trying to help people get the signals. They probably could have scaled back the nagware. But I don't believe they were trying to get rich.


----------



## ziggy29

vinhmen said:


> So what is Locast's motive in providing this service? Are they really doing this out of kindness in their hearts for the poor souls who cannot obtain local broadcasts by any other means? I didn't get that impression during the incessant interruptions for donations during the broadcast.


Maybe it was just people motivated to do something in their disgust for the business practices of these broadcasters, one which I share. (They seem to want to push people into cable and satellite where they can charge fees for "free" TV and then hold viewers hostage by threatening to pull the signal if they don't keep getting more money. They sure don't seem interested in making their OTA signals easier to get or helping more people get their signal.) I mean, follow the money and all, but I don't know who was making money on this, though I would think as a nonprofit there would be public filings as to salaries and such (that may only apply to 501c3 type organizations; I don't know).


----------



## vinhmen

According to the founder it was out of nothing more than kindness in his heart. As someone who has issues with getting OTA broadcasts I appreciate the attempt but the service itself was so wonky for me to the point of unusable and I think it did violate the letter if not intent of the law.


----------



## NYDutch

Locast was operated by Sports Fans Coalition NY, a 501(c)(3) community service non-profit chapter of Washington D.C. based Sports Fans Coalition:

https://helpcenter.locast.org/portal/en/kb/articles/what-is-sports-fans-coalition


----------



## harsh

NYDutch said:


> Planned expansion into under served areas isn't specific enough?


LOCAST had been adding a market every few months. If that's the case, does their operations plus opening up a new market really cost $15 million X the number of months between markets lighting up?

I don't think so.


----------



## NYDutch

harsh said:


> LOCAST had been adding a market every few months. If that's the case, does their operations plus opening up a new market really cost $15 million X the number of months between markets lighting up?
> 
> I don't think so.


If the Red Cross takes in more money than they need for actual expenses this year should they be shut down?


----------



## 1948GG

NYDutch said:


> If the Red Cross takes in more money than they need for actual expenses this year should they be shut down?


According to the very narrow ruling, yes, as are the pbs stations that collect much more than that needed for the continued daily operation of their station. My local, Kcts, assembled a war chest over a decade to fund a second station, ktbc, some 40 miles distant, which now carries many pbs programs both on its main as well as sub-channels, which are not on kcts. YouTube tv only carries kcts, so those of us within the 500 mile wide dma of Seattle have to jump through hoops on the pbs streaming app to view those programs carried on kbtc.

Why didn't these NY folks, once the service was up and running around the country, simply transfer the local recieve facility, equipment, and costs, to a local group instead of trying to build an empire. In Washington State, we had several groups that had, over the years, built multiple uhf translators but had fallen on hard times when the fcc mandated digital transition on the analog systems; the costs were simply too much, and most of those systems are mothballed. But the locast system could have been sold for $1 to a local group, they could easily have operated it with unpaid local retired engineers, and gotten the bare nessesary funds for the internet feed (I wager that our local major backbone providers just may have given it for free or almost free).

Once these NY folks did that a couple of times around the country, it would really take off. Expansion? How did these 'sports' folks do that in the beginning? Have a seperate fundraising group go about it, maybe call it the 'jesus fund' since it seems that this country and its courts have a blind eye toward anything that smacks of messing with anything that simply calls itself that.

So, do it and do it now. Strike while the iron is hot.


----------



## James Long

NYDutch said:


> If the Red Cross takes in more money than they need for actual expenses this year should they be shut down?


The Red Cross is not restricted by 17 U.S. Code Section 111 (a) (5) .... unless (of course) they decide to rebroadcast television stations.

The "narrow ruling" is focused on the law that Locast based their business on. 17 U.S. Code Section 111 (a) (5) does not prevent not for profits in general from collecting more money than they spend or stop not for profits from expanding. 17 U.S. Code Section 111 (a) (5) prevents not for profits from retransmitting television stations if they charge more than the expense of retransmission.

Locast received some donations from non-viewers. Those donations could be used for new markets. If Locast would have separated their fee for turning off the nag interruptions from donations to expand service they probably would still be retransmitting. But they chose to charge a fee that was more than their costs.


----------



## ziggy29

1948GG said:


> Why didn't these NY folks, once the service was up and running around the country, simply transfer the local recieve facility, equipment, and costs, to a local group instead of trying to build an empire. In Washington State, we had several groups that had, over the years, built multiple uhf translators but had fallen on hard times when the fcc mandated digital transition on the analog systems; the costs were simply too much, and most of those systems are mothballed. But the locast system could have been sold for $1 to a local group, they could easily have operated it with unpaid local retired engineers, and gotten the bare nessesary funds for the internet feed (I wager that our local major backbone providers just may have given it for free or almost free).


I have been thinking about it more. It seems to me that a nonprofit local co-op structure should pass legal muster. You could charge annual "dues" for operations (for example, $60 a year like Locast was charging) and members would receive a refund of excess revenues at the end of the year, or perhaps a credit toward the next year's dues. It would also be restricted to serving the local market (no expansion into other markets), so you would have one such organization per market. I would still expect the broadcasters to try to sue them out of business, but it seems to me that such a structure would pretty clearly pass muster in terms of meeting the intent of Congress in creating the law authorizing nonprofit retransmission.


----------



## noahproblem

1948GG said:


> According to the very narrow ruling, yes, as are the pbs stations that collect much more than that needed for the continued daily operation of their station. My local, Kcts, assembled a war chest over a decade to fund a second station, ktbc, some 40 miles distant, which now carries many pbs programs both on its main as well as sub-channels, which are not on kcts.


That's a far cry from many years ago when every year my PBS channel (WGBH, Boston) spent practically the entire month of August in pledge mode, telling everyone every day they need $X by the end of the month, with a not quite silent "or else". Not to mention they'd spend an entire week in June with their on-air auctions looking to raise money.


----------



## James Long

ziggy29 said:


> I have been thinking about it more. It seems to me that a nonprofit local co-op structure should pass legal muster. You could charge annual "dues" for operations (for example, $60 a year like Locast was charging) and members would receive a refund of excess revenues at the end of the year, or perhaps a credit toward the next year's dues. It would also be restricted to serving the local market (no expansion into other markets), so you would have one such organization per market. I would still expect the broadcasters to try to sue them out of business, but it seems to me that such a structure would pretty clearly pass muster in terms of meeting the intent of Congress in creating the law authorizing nonprofit retransmission.


There were fixed costs and variable costs to providing Locast service. Operating as one national not for profit allowed Locast to smooth out the costs over all users. In a market like NY the reception and backhaul costs would be easily covered and only bandwidth and server capacity would need to grow per simultaneous user. In a more rural market the reception and backhaul costs costs would be spread out over less users. (Backhaul is getting the signal from the receiver to the server.) One not for profit per market would not allow Locast to spread those costs across all users - they could end up with a collection of services where one market would be $1 or less per month and a smaller market would be closer to the $5 they requested. Multiple local Locasts would help burn through their overcharges in administrative costs since each market would have separate administrators.

Perhaps using excess donations to cover the cost of expansion will be overturned on appeal. The wording of 17 U.S. Code Section 111 (a) (5) is narrow, but seen as one service another judge could reverse the ruling.


----------



## b4pjoe

The issue is the locals, with the support of the networks, do not want their signals rebroadcast for free by anyone whether for profit or non-profit and will use any means they can to put a stop to it. And they are pretty well undefeated in their efforts.


----------



## NYDutch

ziggy29 said:


> I have been thinking about it more. It seems to me that a nonprofit local co-op structure should pass legal muster. You could charge annual "dues" for operations (for example, $60 a year like Locast was charging) and members would receive a refund of excess revenues at the end of the year, or perhaps a credit toward the next year's dues. It would also be restricted to serving the local market (no expansion into other markets), so you would have one such organization per market. I would still expect the broadcasters to try to sue them out of business, but it seems to me that such a structure would pretty clearly pass muster in terms of meeting the intent of Congress in creating the law authorizing nonprofit retransmission.


If a court saw the refund of excess donations as distributing "profits" to private individuals that would violate the non-profit rules.


----------



## NYDutch

b4pjoe said:


> The issue is the locals, with the support of the networks, do not want their signals rebroadcast for free by anyone whether for profit or non-profit and will use any means they can to put a stop to it. And they are pretty well undefeated in their efforts.


Why did none of the non-Big 4 stations join the lawsuit?


----------



## ziggy29

b4pjoe said:


> The issue is the locals, with the support of the networks, do not want their signals rebroadcast for free by anyone whether for profit or non-profit and will use any means they can to put a stop to it. And they are pretty well undefeated in their efforts.


Exactly. I don't think they EVER intend to allow it to happen, at least not the major networks. They will do everything to sue anyone who tries it out of "business", no matter how obviously compliant they are with the law.


----------



## ziggy29

NYDutch said:


> If a court saw the refund of excess donations as distributing "profits" to private individuals that would violate the non-profit rules.


That would make some sense if the members were buying "shares" of the business. This looks more like a refund of an overpayment to me. But then again, the courts are fantastic in terms of finding ways to give these huge corporations everything they want against the little guy.


----------



## James Long

NYDutch said:


> Why did none of the non-Big 4 stations join the lawsuit?


All four major networks were involved in the suit against Locast. That would include the stations that the networks own.


----------



## NashGuy

NR4P said:


> Here's my point...I can buy an ATSC TV for $100+ and in my local market, receive the channels for free. But I can't do the same thing on my mobile phone because it doesn't have the ATSC chip in it? It comes in via LTE/5G vs ATSC RF so that makes a difference?
> 
> And yes I know Locast suspended operations. Too bad





ziggy29 said:


> If there was a market for it, phone makers could put an ATSC tuner into their phones and allow reception of OTA TV through it. Of course, there wouldn't be much of an antenna so you'd probably have to be almost on top of the transmitters...


Sinclair has been the most enthusiastic backer of our new OTA TV transmission standard, ATSC 3.0, and for years now they've talked up getting ATSC 3.0 tuner chips included in mobile phones. They even partnered with an Indian chip maker to come up with 3.0 chips that can be used across lots of device types, including mobile. They produced a small batch of Android smartphones with those chips embedded last year for testing purposes and said that they were in talks with two MVNOs to distribute ATSC 3.0-equipped phones. AFAIK, nothing more has come of those efforts though.

https://www.lightreading.com/cablevideo/atsc-30-reaches-smartphone/d/d-id/765098

I don't really see OTA TV in smartphones taking off. Can't see how it's in the interests of the mobile carriers (Verizon, T-Mo, AT&T) or Apple or Google, for that matter, which means we'll never see widespread inclusion of the tuner chips in smartphones (similar to how we've never seen widespread inclusion of FM radio capabilities in smartphones). And if it did start taking off, my guess is that the broadcast networks would force their 3.0 affiliates to disable free reception by smartphone of their high-value broadcasts like live NFL. Nope, they want those folks to pay to watch via their subscription streaming services like Paramount+, Peacock Premium, etc.

That's the weird thing about free OTA TV in general. None of the companies involved in offering it -- the broadcast networks and their affiliate stations -- really want *that* many people to use it. They instead want you to pay to access those channels via a cable TV subscription, of which they get a nice cut. Those cable retransmission fees constitute a big chunk of broadcast stations' and networks' revenue. But at the same time, allowing some folks to access those channels for free, via OTA antenna, does help boost their viewership numbers, and therefore their ad revenue, which is also important. So they don't want to cut off those folks or make it _too_ hard to tune in via antenna.

The main advantages of ATSC 3.0 are supposed to be easier, more reliable reception with small indoor antennas, along with significantly improved picture and sound quality. Those advancements, it seems to me, would only encourage more people to cut the cord on cable TV, buy a cheap antenna, and get their locals for free (while getting most of their entertainment from paid apps like Netflix, etc.). Which is probably why we've never seen any real statements of support for ATSC 3.0 from Disney/ABC, Comcast/NBC, ViacomCBS, or Fox. If you're going to dump cable, they want you to still pay for their content via the streaming services they own, e.g. Hulu, Peacock, Paramount+ (where they're not sharing any of the subscription or ad revenue with their local station partners).


----------



## harsh

NYDutch said:


> If the Red Cross takes in more money than they need for actual expenses this year should they be shut down?


The only disasters that LOCAST faces are equipment failures and those may cost hundreds to fix once in a while, not millions per month.


----------



## NYDutch

James Long said:


> All four major networks were involved in the suit against Locast. That would include the stations that the networks own.


And that still leaves a lot of stations that could lose out if there was any financial settlement when this is all settled.


----------



## NYDutch

harsh said:


> The only disasters that LOCAST faces are equipment failures and those may cost hundreds to fix once in a while, not millions per month.


Are they not allowed to maintain a fund for unexpected loss expenses? And a legal fund? Many non-profits do. Neither one of us has seen their financials to know how much money was allocated to what. Keep in mind, this ruling was based on just one man's interpretation of the law. I'll be very surprised if appeals are not forthcoming...


----------



## ziggy29

NYDutch said:


> Are they not allowed to maintain a fund for unexpected loss expenses? And a legal fund? Many non-profits do. Neither one of us has seen their financials to know how much money was allocated to what. Keep in mind, this ruling was based on just one man's interpretation of the law. I'll be very surprised if appeals are not forthcoming...


If they are going to appeal and keep the legal fight going, IMO they need to say so. I think some people may keep donating if they are going to fight this ruling, but if people think they are going to pack it up and give up, they will not.


----------



## NYDutch

ziggy29 said:


> If they are going to appeal and keep the legal fight going, IMO they need to say so. I think some people may keep donating if they are going to fight this ruling, but if people think they are going to pack it up and give up, they will not.


They've canceled donations for now. I expect the lawyers are going through their options at this point, to work out the strongest path forward.


----------



## James Long

NYDutch said:


> And that still leaves a lot of stations that could lose out if there was any financial settlement when this is all settled.


The goal is to PREVENT unpaid carriage of the signals. With Locast going out of business there probably won't be much of a financial settlement to share. Just a big warning sign to others that might have the same brilliant idea as Aereo and Locast to rebroadcast OTA TV stations (and their networks) without permission and without paying royalties.



NYDutch said:


> Are they not allowed to maintain a fund for unexpected loss expenses? And a legal fund? Many non-profits do. Neither one of us has seen their financials to know how much money was allocated to what.


Per 17 U.S. Code Section 111 (a) (5) the money they collected for access to the service CANNOT be used for anything other than providing the retransmission. They are free to collect money from other sources (voluntary donations, corporate support, etc) for their legal defense fund. They are free to collect money from other sources for their expansion fund. They can maintain as big of a fund as they want for any purpose that doesn't violate other not for profit laws. The issue is that they used money collected in exchange for uninterrupted access for purposes other than providing retransmission.

The court saw their books, so I will defer to the court's judgement as to how their fees and donations were allocated.


----------



## NYDutch

I suspect it will be the ruling that the completely voluntary donations are in fact "charges" or "assessments" that will be the primary subject of any appeals. If that ruling is overturned, I think Locast wins...


----------



## James Long

NYDutch said:


> They've canceled donations for now. I expect the lawyers are going through their options at this point, to work out the strongest path forward.


In my opinion, they should charge a minimal access fee that would be close to or not cover the cost of retransmission ($1 per month, $10 per year ?) and solicit separate donations not tied to access to cover the expenses not covered by the minimal fee (or not allowed to be covered by the fee). The law allows a user fee. It just restricts how that user fee is spent.

There are other legal issues pending in the case. 17 U.S. Code Section 111 (a) (5) was the key piece of law that Locast was relying on. Fixing their violation of that law doesn't fix any other violations that may have occurred. I do not expect Locast to be able to return to service until ALL of the legal challenges have been settled. (Correcting their violation of 17 U.S. Code Section 111 (a) (5) would not be enough.)

Perhaps the next company to attempt such a service will do better.


----------



## b4pjoe

NYDutch said:


> Why did none of the non-Big 4 stations join the lawsuit?


What exactly is the non-Big 4 stations you are referring to?

As James said and it states in the article at the top of this thread: "Locast has lost the courtroom skirmish started by CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox"


----------



## ericknolls

"If" they are collecting that much money from 3 million subscribers. No one said they are. They have to pay salaries and operational purposes. I am assuming. I don't think you broadcast television service and not have any overhead expenses. However way they are broadcasting their service.


----------



## James Long

The paperwork filed with the court stated their revenue and expenses.


----------



## NYDutch

b4pjoe said:


> What exactly is the non-Big 4 stations you are referring to?
> 
> As James said and it states in the article at the top of this thread: "Locast has lost the courtroom skirmish started by CBS, ABC, NBC and Fox"


CW, MeTV, ion, and other assorted independents...


----------



## ziggy29

NYDutch said:


> CW, MeTV, ion, and other assorted independents...


It may be oversimplifying, but I would wager that any station that chose to opt out of must-carry would be part of the lawsuit.


----------



## NYDutch

ziggy29 said:


> It may be oversimplifying, but I would wager that any station that chose to opt out of must-carry would be part of the lawsuit.


 "Must carry", etc, are FCC rules for cable and satellite that have no bearing on this case. Any station management not asking the court to be included in the suit would be excluded from any settlement. This is not a class action suit.


----------



## James Long

NYDutch said:


> "Must carry", etc, are FCC rules for cable and satellite that have no bearing on this case. Any station management not asking the court to be included in the suit would be excluded from any settlement. This is not a class action suit.


As clearly stated, cease and desist is the goal. Stop people from rebroadcasting stations without permission or compensation. The settlement they seek is for Locast to be treated like a MVPD that needs to ask and pay for permission (which would help non-big 4 stations to the same extent that it helps big 4 stations).


----------



## ziggy29

NYDutch said:


> "Must carry", etc, are FCC rules for cable and satellite that have no bearing on this case.


My point is that these stations want people to use cable or satellite, where they can charge for retransmission. They want to shut down other options where they don't get paid. Stations on must-carry probably don't care how their broadcast gets out as long as it is intact.


----------



## NYDutch

James Long said:


> As clearly stated, cease and desist is the goal. Stop people from rebroadcasting stations without permission or compensation. The settlement they seek is for Locast to be treated like a MVPD that needs to ask and pay for permission (which would help non-big 4 stations to the same extent that it helps big 4 stations).


I agree, bur if the courts award any monetary damages for past actions, only those included in the lawsuit will share in them.


----------



## James Long

Lawyers can be expensive. These battles are typically fought by the big four networks or the big four networks and their affiliates. The "if" on the courts awarding a monetary fine is big. The "if" on Locast being able to pay any monetary damages is even bigger. $0 divided by hundreds of carried stations that were illegally carried is not a big number.


----------



## 1948GG

All this talk is simply trying to figure out a way to get around people who simply move the goal posts with their billions spent on shady lawyers and bought off judges. The first thing I learned in broadcast engineering class 50 years ago, was that a federal license was, in essence, a licence to print money. No matter what the law says, or how it is 'interperted', at the end of the day those with huge monetary incentive to keep things exactly the way they are will use any argument, no matter how convoluted or nonsensical, to maintain that flow of cash into their back pocket. That is the 'American Way'.

So, what has to be found is a way to interrupt that flow, of which there are two main sources. One of those, the retransmission fees, is already under pretty significant challenge and has been for several years by the satellite folks in particular. Cable, not so much, as they must figure they have a captive subscriber base, especially with the increasing number of renters in US society that can't simply bolt a dish to their home. However, in the near future, wireless internet from cellular companies may make some inroads.

But their other income source, advertisements, is based on, to me over the years, figures that mostly come from one company, that even to the big networks has been shady at best (as they keep suing this company every few years for more clarity in their figures). Its easy to simply total up the cable and satellite subscriber households and present those as the numbers who are watching the adverts, and come up with rates that make sense. But wait, what about antenna folks, or the numbers of households that, to quote Sheldon, are unable to recieve those signals due to Physics? And then there are the hoa's that ban antennas, or the communities that insert anti-antenna ordinances into property deeds?

Well, this company simply assumes that all those households that don't subscribe to the companies paying retransmission all have the ability to recieve via antenna, realistically or not. That keeps the viewership numbers, and resulting advert rates, nice and high. Simply take the census numbers from any dma and that gives them the result they want.

Don't think that's what is done? Even those big networks can't get the real numbers, Comcast/NBC Universal is still trying to pry how the numbers don't make sense from this company. I think EFF should join in that lawsuit, if for anything, to look under the rock and see what crawls out.


----------



## Davenlr

How come when you subscribe to cable, they charge extra for locals, but don't allow you to opt out? Seems rather shady. I was checking Xfinity, and they charge $14.95 on top of their "cable package" price for locals, but dont let you opt out. Seems like false advertising. They should have to include EVERY CHANNEL you cannot opt out of getting in their "package price", no small print that its plus $14.95 for locals, and plus $8.00 for the RSN channel, plus tax plus plus plus


----------



## James Long

Cable is required to include locals in their lowest level (and all levels above). Satellite does not have that restriction.
The marketing could be better but the fees vary by market and Xfinity wants to have "national" prices like the other national providers.


----------



## ziggy29

James Long said:


> Cable is required to include locals in their lowest level (and all levels above). Satellite does not have that restriction.


Indeed, I remember when DIRECTV started carrying locals, and at first it was an optional add-on for an additional cost, instead of a standard part of the packages.


----------



## Davenlr

James Long said:


> Cable is required to include locals in their lowest level (and all levels above). Satellite does not have that restriction.
> The marketing could be better but the fees vary by market and Xfinity wants to have "national" prices like the other national providers.


OK, so if it is required, why do they hide the extra charge in their package price, and only include the extra $14.95 monthly charge in the fine print you wont see until after you sign up? I was trying to compare charges, and honestly, after reading all the fricking fine print, I couldnt even tell how much it would cost me a month for a cable tv package. There were so many charges, so many credits for this and that (that only kick in 3 months later), and other BS, it was a total nightmare compared with the flat rate streaming services. I dont see how anyone deals with them.


----------



## 1948GG

They hide it for the obvious reason, and why cablecos are, for just shy of 100% of the citizens, the most despised corporate entities in the country. What one might ask is why the broadcasters aren't as universally hated, since they are the ones taking the public airwaves, that are by law supposed to be free, and monitizing them. We all know why; greed and able to shift blame. 

Then again, why do people watch them? Most of these 'local' stations are now owned by conglomerates, many of which are in turn owned by billionaires who are easily shown to be unamerican at their core. Congress and the fcc allowed this concentration to happen, and it's going to take a huge effort to turn it around. Programming, compared to 10 or 20 years ago is filled with 'reality', unscripted trash. Most of the scripted shows are derivatives of popular programs of many years past. Cheap is the word.

The community programming of years ago has mostly dissapeared from the local 'news', replaced by slickly produced regional fare usually from the other side of the country, pushing ideas complely foreign, at least in my neck of the woods, to those in the west. Except maybe in the compounds of northern idaho where bombers, bank robbers, and vigilantes hang out.

So it's like a lot of problems, fed by years of neglect with only one idea being pushed: maximum return on investment. 

But one only has to look at real statistics, and they show broadcast tv is actually falling down in viewership so fast its whiplash time, despite what the main 'national' ratings service says. If these folks eventually see reality, they may just wake up, but if they don't pretty fast they may be doomed.


----------



## NYDutch

As I recall, Dish broke out the locals as a separate line item on our bills so we could see what we were paying for them before they started offering the opt-out option.


----------



## Mark Holtz

Lets see here.... DFW Market (#5):

ABC (WFAA) - Tegna Inc.
CBS (KTVT) - CBS O&O
NBC (KXAS) - NBC O&O
Fox (KDFW) - Fox O&O
Sacramento Market (#20):

ABC (KXTV) - Tegna Inc.
CBS (KOVR) - CBS O&O
NBC (KCRA) - Hearst Television
Fox (KTXL) - Nexstar Media Group
It's all part of the Retransmission content which was passed in 1992 as part of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act which was veto-ed by President Bush on October 3rd, 1992, only to have the veto overridden two days later by both legislative chambers. As local advertising revenues have dried up, the stations have been looking to make up that income through retransmission fees, partially because the stations have to pay the networks for carriage. (And, ages ago, the networks paid the stations for carriage. Blame the increasing sports rights costs.)

Should the fees be broken out? Yes. Will they? Probably not due to contractual restrictions.


----------



## NYDutch

Mark Holtz said:


> Lets see here.... DFW Market (#5):
> 
> ABC (WFAA) - Tegna Inc.
> CBS (KTVT) - CBS O&O
> NBC (KXAS) - NBC O&O
> Fox (KDFW) - Fox O&O
> Sacramento Market (#20):
> 
> ABC (KXTV) - Tegna Inc.
> CBS (KOVR) - CBS O&O
> NBC (KCRA) - Hearst Television
> Fox (KTXL) - Nexstar Media Group
> It's all part of the Retransmission content which was passed in 1992 as part of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act which was veto-ed by President Bush on October 3rd, 1992, only to have the veto overridden two days later by both legislative chambers. As local advertising revenues have dried up, the stations have been looking to make up that income through retransmission fees, partially because the stations have to pay the networks for carriage. (And, ages ago, the networks paid the stations for carriage. Blame the increasing sports rights costs.)
> 
> Should the fees be broken out? Yes. Will they? Probably not due to contractual restrictions.


Dish breaks out the charge to subscribers for the locals package that can be opted out, not the actual cost per station. I expect the local stations are not getting paid for those subscribers that opt out.


----------



## James Long

NYDutch said:


> As I recall, Dish broke out the locals as a separate line item on our bills so we could see what we were paying for them before they started offering the opt-out option.


DISH's breakout is a national rate. It costs the same for locals in NY and LA where there are multiple channels to uplink as it does in smaller markets where there are only five or six channels to carry, That does not show the cost of the locals on a per market basis. We can see what we are paying DISH for the locals but we cannot see what DISH is paying the stations for carriage rights.

The breakout has provided DISH the same benefit Xfinity and other providers have ... the ability to advertise a lower price. In DISH's case it is legal for them to make locals optional. Although they are required to offer carriage to all local stations in all markets, they are not required to force their customers to subscribe to local channels. They are required to sell the locals as a group (can't sell Sinclair separate from Gray separate from Tenga). Due to "lifeline service" laws passed decades ago, cable companies ARE required to force their customers to subscribe to local channels.

Neither cable or satellite are required to accept any carriage deal offered by a station that chooses "consent to carry". The station could request a penny per subscriber per year and could be refused carriage if the cable/satellite company does not want to pay. Based on industry reports it is more likely that most network stations are charging over $1 per month and looking to raise that fee as high as the market will bear. When a carriage agreement cannot be reached or expires carriage ends.

I *HOPE* that stations are not getting paid for DISH customers who opt out but I can see the major conglomerates asking for such a fee. Most stations do not care whether or not their signal reaches the subscribers - they just want to be paid for those subscribers so asking for a fee based on the total number of DISH subscribers in a market instead of the number of local channel subscribers in a market would not surprise me.


----------



## ziggy29

Mark Holtz said:


> As local advertising revenues have dried up, the stations have been looking to make up that income through retransmission fees, partially because the stations have to pay the networks for carriage.


This is a fair point. Local stations have to make their money somewhere. I have to think between shrinking ratings and the proliferation of DVRs skipping commercials, it is pretty hard to make enough money with just advertising revenue these days. I am really not opposed to letting stations charge a fee for cable and satellite retransmission, provided the fee is reasonable and allows for a fair profit. But I am opposed like hell to the ability of stations and cable/satellite providers making viewers suffer when they have a dispute. IMO there should be some sort of third party mediation and eventually binding arbitration, one that does not let the station go dark for viewers. It is that reason why I am interested in OTA (when I can get it) or other ways to get the station which will not be blacked out in a carriage dispute.


----------



## NYDutch

James Long said:


> DISH's breakout is a national rate. It costs the same for locals in NY and LA where there are multiple channels to uplink as it does in smaller markets where there are only five or six channels to carry, That does not show the cost of the locals on a per market basis. We can see what we are paying DISH for the locals but we cannot see what DISH is paying the stations for carriage rights.
> 
> The breakout has provided DISH the same benefit Xfinity and other providers have ... the ability to advertise a lower price. In DISH's case it is legal for them to make locals optional. Although they are required to offer carriage to all local stations in all markets, they are not required to force their customers to subscribe to local channels. They are required to sell the locals as a group (can't sell Sinclair separate from Gray separate from Tenga). Due to "lifeline service" laws passed decades ago, cable companies ARE required to force their customers to subscribe to local channels.
> 
> Neither cable or satellite are required to accept any carriage deal offered by a station that chooses "consent to carry". The station could request a penny per subscriber per year and could be refused carriage if the cable/satellite company does not want to pay. Based on industry reports it is more likely that most network stations are charging over $1 per month and looking to raise that fee as high as the market will bear. When a carriage agreement cannot be reached or expires carriage ends.
> 
> I *HOPE* that stations are not getting paid for DISH customers who opt out but I can see the major conglomerates asking for such a fee. Most stations do not care whether or not their signal reaches the subscribers - they just want to be paid for those subscribers so asking for a fee based on the total number of DISH subscribers in a market instead of the number of local channel subscribers in a market would not surprise me.


I noted just above your post that the price broken out was the subscriber price, not the actual per station costing. I'd think Dish would not offer the locals opt-out option if they still had to pay the stations for those subscribers since there would be no benefit to Dish, just a loss of revenue.


----------



## NashGuy

ziggy29 said:


> But I am opposed like hell to the ability of stations and cable/satellite providers making viewers suffer when they have a dispute. IMO there should be some sort of third party mediation and eventually binding arbitration, one that does not let the station go dark for viewers. It is that reason why I am interested in OTA (when I can get it) or other ways to get the station which will not be blacked out in a carriage dispute.


A couple of U.S. Reps, Eshoo (D, CA) and Scalise (R, LA) have a bill that they've introduced in Congress just about every year for a long while now, it seems. They're trying to repeal a lot of what went into the 1992 Cable Act. Among other things, it would ensure that stations continued to be carried by MVPDs during contract re-negotiations for up to 60 days, which should significantly reduce black-outs. It would also empower the FCC to force both sides to a biding neutral arbitration process.

The bigger change is that, after 42 months, the bill if enacted would repeal retransmission consent and allow free-market contract negotiations to happen under traditional copyright law. It would also strip government at all levels from being able to regulate cable rates. How that would transform the TV industry, and whether or not it would improve the situation for consumers, I don't know.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> In my opinion, they should charge a minimal access fee that would be close to or not cover the cost of retransmission ($1 per month, $10 per year ?) and solicit separate donations not tied to access to cover the expenses not covered by the minimal fee (or not allowed to be covered by the fee). The law allows a user fee. It just restricts how that user fee is spent.
> 
> There are other legal issues pending in the case. 17 U.S. Code Section 111 (a) (5) was the key piece of law that Locast was relying on. Fixing their violation of that law doesn't fix any other violations that may have occurred. I do not expect Locast to be able to return to service until ALL of the legal challenges have been settled. (Correcting their violation of 17 U.S. Code Section 111 (a) (5) would not be enough.)
> 
> Perhaps the next company to attempt such a service will do better.


Yes, IMO, the bigger question, which the recent ruling did not address, is whether a nonprofit organization can redistribute, without consent, OTA TV signals via a different transmission medium, such as the internet, instead of via OTA, as repeater towers do.


----------



## James Long

OTA is the only way of receiving a station without worrying about a dispute. Nearly every other reception method requires agreement by the station to be carried, which opens the door to the station refusing to be carried if their demands are not met. Even Locast could be considered a carriage dispute. Locast believe that they met the legal standard for being able to retransmit the station's signals, the stations disagreed.

A complete reform of carriage laws is unlikely (in my opinion). Even more so after the changes last year that set non-expiring carriage rules for distants. The expiration of distant carriage laws became a trigger where Congress looked at other changes while doing the required "change the expiration date" needed to continue distant station. With distants no longer expiring there is no automatic trigger. Something else will be needed to get Congress interested in changing the laws.


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> The bigger change is that, after 42 months, the bill if enacted would repeal retransmission consent and allow free-market contract negotiations to happen under traditional copyright law. It would also strip government at all levels from being able to regulate cable rates. How that would transform the TV industry, and whether or not it would improve the situation for consumers, I don't know.


No, thank you. free-market rates would leave the door open for station groups to set extortionist level pricing ($5 per station per month anyone?). While there would be no collusion between stations (HA!) I'd expect the "free-market" rate to continue to grow as each station group leverages their exclusive content for just a little bit more.

What I would like to see is a statutory rate combined with "must carry" of all stations. If paying copyright is the issue then let it be paid the same way satellite has been paying for distants and superstations for decades. Set a rate, pay into a fund and let the true copyright holders claim from the fund whether their content is on one of the top rated stations currently charging high rates for carriage or a station that is currently "must carry". The current law discriminates against such small stations that still carry copyrighted content - but their copyright holders do not get any additional compensation for the retransmission via cable/satellite if they are "must carry".

Must Carry and a statutory rate would be better than consumers than any outcome that lets stations choose how much to charge (whether one claims it is market based or not).



NashGuy said:


> Yes, IMO, the bigger question, which the recent ruling did not address, is whether a nonprofit organization can redistribute, without consent, OTA TV signals via a different transmission medium, such as the internet, instead of via OTA, as repeater towers do.


Locast failed at the first hurdle ... they court didn't need to look any further.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Locast failed at the first hurdle ... they court didn't need to look any further.


Obviously. But that doesn't contradict the point I raised. And, depending on whether Locast appeals the decision, that bigger question, regarding the legality of the retransmission of OTA TV via the internet, may get addressed. Without clarity on that issue, I don't see Locast, or likely any other nonprofit, risking trying this concept again.


----------



## mwdxer

After Locast shut down, there are tons of ads on places you can get locals. In about all cases, the viewer that was paying $5 a month, suddenly to get their locals from a provider has to buy some package of programming for $50 or more a month, just to get locals? With few or no diginets included. Locast had a nitch that worked, giving the viewer most of the channels in their DMA, including the popular diginets. None of these other services do that! You pay almost what cable/satellite costs just to get locals? There needs some service that just will offer what Locast did, even if they have to pay re-transmission fees. I think many would be satisfied to pay $20 a month to get all locals and popular diginets in their market. It is not $5, but more affordable than these other services. Maybe Locast could come back, looking at a legal venture to offer what they do now for a decent price. Many of us do not get all diginets. I have always hoped some service will open up to offer all of the diginets in a package. One reason I stay with Dish (One of many), is they offer a lot of diginets that I can easily DVR. I have been trying to get Dish to have Decades. One that is nearly impossible to get, as no one offers it. I live in Oregon, and Portland dropped it a couple years ago and since Corporate calls the shots, the locals could not offer it even it they wanted to. There is a real gap in what we can receive, even streaming. All people do not want a bunch of the popular cable channels either. I know people that are very happy with OTA translators which we have 27 of them.


----------



## ziggy29

NashGuy said:


> A couple of U.S. Reps, Eshoo (D, CA) and Scalise (R, LA) have a bill that they've introduced in Congress just about every year for a long while now, it seems. They're trying to repeal a lot of what went into the 1992 Cable Act. Among other things, it would ensure that stations continued to be carried by MVPDs during contract re-negotiations for up to 60 days, which should significantly reduce black-outs. It would also empower the FCC to force both sides to a biding neutral arbitration process.
> 
> The bigger change is that, after 42 months, the bill if enacted would repeal retransmission consent and allow free-market contract negotiations to happen under traditional copyright law. It would also strip government at all levels from being able to regulate cable rates. How that would transform the TV industry, and whether or not it would improve the situation for consumers, I don't know.


I am good with the first part. The second part scares me. I am not a fan of government overregulation but in this case I think it would be a good thing (since these stations are subject to regulation by the FCC because they receive a portion of the airwaves) to establish reasonable rates a station could charge for retransmission.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Why are the locals stations so against streaming their signals via the internet, is it because of their contracts with cable and satellite?


----------



## Richard

The Local station model is archaic and no longer needed. Everyone should boycott providers who continue to bow to


TheRatPatrol said:


> Why are the locals stations so against streaming their signals via the internet, is it because of their contracts with cable and satellite?


It all has to do with advertising contracts. Though, with all the consolidation that has been allowed to happen, every single local station could be owned by one company some day.

Congress is the one to blame, for allowing these companies, who were GIVEN free airwaves to broadcast on, to then charge anyone who tries to re-broadcast that signal how ever much they want. It's all a product of our corrupt, broken political system where those who are supposed to represent us all, only represent those who pay them the most.


----------



## James Long

TheRatPatrol said:


> Why are the locals stations so against streaming their signals via the internet, is it because of their contracts with cable and satellite?


Stations are streamed via YouTube, DIRECTV Stream and other services that pay them for rights. The streaming without permission thing is the problem.


----------



## ziggy29

TheRatPatrol said:


> Why are the locals stations so against streaming their signals via the internet, is it because of their contracts with cable and satellite?


It is largely because the enabling legislation allows stations to opt out of "must carry" provisions, and that allows stations to demand payment for retransmission of their signal through cable and satellite. This gives stations the incentive to want *all* viewers to view their programming through cable or satellite. They provide free OTA at this point mostly because they have to as terms for getting their use of the public airwaves. But they will oppose anything that encourages people to view their programming (other than OTA) in a way that does not involve paid retransmission.

Also -- a lot of the smaller, independent or small network stations are not against this (these are largely the ones that are on must-carry). It is mostly the four major networks, who see their programming (somewhat justifiably) as "worth more" in the marketplace, who are fighting any ability to receive their programming other than through cable or satellite (or grudgingly, OTA). They are not against streaming -- plenty of streaming services include their programming. They are against not being paid, and when the law is ambiguous enough to allow them to put a stop to that, they will.


----------



## 1948GG

James Long said:


> OTA is the only way of receiving a station without worrying about a dispute.


The problem with limiting free retransmission to ota is out west. Stop the provincial thinking that is typical of the east coast. My dma is 500 miles on a side, there are several others that are larger. You can't simply put up a tall tower with an array of terrestrial antennas to pick up the signals, it's impossible, period. Not just the distance, but the fact we have these things called mountain ranges and volcanos that routinely exceed 10k feet; they make the mountains of east and west Pennsylvania, where along with our mountain and coastal communities cable got its start, look like little bumps in the terrain. It required, back in the day, multiple microwave links to each repeater.

Today, such expensive and maintenance intensive (think about trying to repair a microwave link on a snow covered peak in the middle of winter; I've been there. Not fun) is cheaply replaced by the internet.

Two things: first, the cablecos sponsored Washington state laws decades ago to do two things, prevent public utilities or other entities from constructing broadband networks anywhere, in competition with or where no other providers were, simply banned them outright. Secondly, made it legal to force deed restrictions on communities that made, in direct contravention of federal fcc rules, banning rooftop antennas and satellite dishes.

Both these moves, made way before the technology actually made such things possible (in fact, early 1970's) showed the folks pushing such restrictions (the early cable and telcos) how far ahead they were thinking on how to strangle any competition.

The state laws on public construction of internet systems was recently mostly removed, once the republican controlled senate was voted out (like most states and indeed the federal congress, the senate was controlled by a very thin number, very undemocratic, less than 20% of the actual voters).

When I was living much closer to Seattle and still working, I lived in a 'planned' community in which the land deed prohibited both rooftop antennas and DBS dishes; I was lucky enough to be able to, by the U shape construction of my home and be backed up to a deep ravine, able to hide both my DirecTV and Dish network dishes from any view. But of course could not put up an ota antenna despite being almost 50miles from the towers in downtown Seattle, so until DirecTV began transmitting locals in 2000, I had no local tv. After retirement, I moved some 3 miles down the road and put up tv, scanner, and ham radio antennas, among others.

So, there are now huge plans to construct, mostly by the county public utility districts that have built power, water, and wastewater systems throughout the state since the 1930s, fiber to the home systems. The small slice of the city I moved to 6 years ago, primarily because it was the only place within 30 miles with comcast cable and its own local river dam wich made electric rates half that of when I lived in Seattle, may have internet at half it's current costs in 3+ years. Tmobile already beats it, as does Starlink, but the reliability and upkeep has been excellent.

But now back to those locals, which really are 'locals' in name only, controlled by huge conglomerates east of the Mississippi for the most part. They need to he broken up, just like the Facebooks. When the stations got bought out over the last 20 years, most of the well known reporters and studio folks quit or took early retirement rather tha spew the nonsense their eastern owners required. Station managers tried to keep the 'must run' propaganda pieces to the middle of the night, but they couldn't keep it up forever.

As I pointed out before, once folks realize the reality of the viewership of the 'majors' has really slipped, and the figures they've been fed for years were being made up, even if they had programming folks wanted, it's going to be as hard sell. Everybody wants to point out sports, but really, what kind of percentage does that generate? Pretty thin edge of the wedge, and if push comes to shove, radio with internet generated field stats at 1/100th the cost sounds okay to me.

Every time some new and cheaper means of media consumption hits the rural community I live in, I get excited as all get out, but I'm always brought back to earth by folks living here for years. We got Starlink pretty early this year, but folks still living with dialup or non-Netflix ready dsl kinda shrug, maybe when the price gets cut in half. I'll update this when/if that fiber actually gets built.

In the meantime, it would be nice if the populace got what they were promised 70 years ago.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

James Long said:


> Stations are streamed via YouTube, DIRECTV Stream and other services that pay them for rights. The streaming without permission thing is the problem.


Correct.

So who is more to blame here, Locast for not wanting to pay retransmission fees or the locals for not wanting to work with and come to an agreement with Locast, was that option ever brought to the table?

Again, you would think the locals would want as many eyeballs watching their stations as possible, especially for those that can't receive OTA signals.

Sorry for stupid questions, but I never used or did any research on Locast.


----------



## James Long

1948GG said:


> The problem with limiting free retransmission to ota is out west. Stop the provincial thinking that is typical of the east coast.


Wow ... first impression was already "TL : DR" but if you are going to throw insults that gives another reason to completely ignore the post.

(It seems that you have a lot of issues not related to copyright/retransmission laws.)



1948GG said:


> In the meantime, it would be nice if the populace got what they were promised 70 years ago.


Who promised what in 1951?
I do not recall anyone promising universal TV coverage to every home in the country regardless of location including guaranteed delivery via means not yet invented 70 years ago.


----------



## ziggy29

TheRatPatrol said:


> Again, you would think the locals would want as many eyeballs watching their stations as possible, especially for those that can't receive OTA signals.


Except that when they opt out of must carry and therefore charge for retransmission, they want everyone to watch their station through a provider that is paying them. In reality, they would love it if everyone watched through cable or satellite than by OTA. They have to provide OTA by law, but in reality, they'd rather people use cable.

Notice that you never see PBS joining these lawsuits? Or many other smaller, independent stations?


----------



## harsh

NYDutch said:


> Are they not allowed to maintain a fund for unexpected loss expenses? And a legal fund? Many non-profits do.


That's most often handled with insurance and it doesn't cost millions a month.

I recommend you address where these millions are going.


----------



## James Long

ziggy29 said:


> Notice that you never see PBS joining these lawsuits? Or many other smaller, independent stations?


PBS stations are non-commercial and cannot profit off of "consent to carry" negotiations. The other non-commercial stations (non-PBS educational, religious, etc) are under the same restrictions. The smaller stations don't have the money to hire lawyers for this fight.


----------



## Mark Holtz

1948GG said:


> The problem with limiting free retransmission to ota is out west. Stop the provincial thinking that is typical of the east coast. My dma is 500 miles on a side, there are several others that are larger. You can't simply put up a tall tower with an array of terrestrial antennas to pick up the signals, it's impossible, period. Not just the distance, but the fact we have these things called mountain ranges and volcanos that routinely exceed 10k feet; they make the mountains of east and west Pennsylvania, where along with our mountain and coastal communities cable got its start, look like little bumps in the terrain. It required, back in the day, multiple microwave links to each repeater.


For your viewing pleasure, here is a video showing that 80% of the United States population lives in the eastern half of the United States.






The transmitters for the Sacramento stations are located in Walnut Grove, not Sacramento, and are among the highest in the western United States. As for the San Francisco stations, most are located on the Sutro Tower, as the SF Bay Area terrain is a transmission nightmare. As for the DFW area, most are located in Cedar Hill south of Dallas. But, then again, we are talking about the #5 (DFW), #6 (SF) and #20 (Sac) media markets.

When it comes down to the Neilson rankings, the top 50% of the television households are in the top 25 markets. Number one and number two are New York City and Los Angeles respectively, making up 10.9% of the television households. The bottom 10% of television markets start with #116-Springfield-Holyoke (MA) and end with #210 Glendive (MT). While the Salt Lake City market is ranked #30, it covers the entire STATE of Utah, plus portions of western Nevada, southern Idaho, and southwestern Wyoming.... which includes plenty of repeaters to get those 1.1 million television homes.


----------



## Steveknj

TV_Guy said:


> A classic streaming dilemma. The antenna idea is good since it gives you flexibility. You want VHF elements since WPIX and WNET are high VHF signals. Another viewing method for PBS is the streaming apps offered by NJ PBS and WNET and WLIW. YouTube TV offers Connecticut PBS and WLIW and WNET in the NY Metro area. With no contracts you could go with Directv Stream during the baseball season and substitute the lower priced YouTube TV during the baseball off-season. There is a possibility that YES will be offered direct to consumer next season but I think it is less likely to be offered than the fully owned Sinclair RSNs.


It's more than just YES unfortunately. NY actually have 4 RSNs, YES and SNY, plus 2 MSG channels. MSG is also not offered on YTTV. The only reason I cut the cord in the first place was because there was FINALLY a full featured OTT that has all 4 RSNs. Plus, if it was just me, rotating among the various OTT services wouldn't be a big deal, but I have other people in the house where I'm trying to make things as easy as possible. Even THIS solution is not as intuitive as having everything in one place.

I put up an antenna over the weekend and bought HD Homerun to "stream" the OTA contents via Channels. Works decently and no change in reality to what we were doing before (and in the long run, save another $5). Still need to tweak the antenna some, but that's next weekend's project.


----------



## Steveknj

Richard said:


> The Local station model is archaic and no longer needed. Everyone should boycott providers who continue to bow to
> 
> It all has to do with advertising contracts. Though, with all the consolidation that has been allowed to happen, every single local station could be owned by one company some day.
> 
> Congress is the one to blame, for allowing these companies, who were GIVEN free airwaves to broadcast on, to then charge anyone who tries to re-broadcast that signal how ever much they want. It's all a product of our corrupt, broken political system where those who are supposed to represent us all, only represent those who pay them the most.


I agree, but this is low on the Congressional totem pole of things that they need to fix. The old system, I agree is archaic and comes from a time when cable TV was a budding power and local advertisters wanted to protect themselves. They also see that there ARE alternatives. With that said, they need to look at how people watch TV, consider that something like Locast CAN be used similarly to any other streaming service and that there can be money to be made all around. And really, I think this has to do with donations and how they are used more than transmission rights, am I correct? Why couldn't a company like Locast try and work with the 4 majors and offer a service that ONLY offers locals? That's the part I don't get (though I assume this has to do with contracts they have with existing providers). I would think that if a cable company chooses to charge for carriage (and decline "must carry rules") then a service like Locast should be able to thrive.


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> With that said, they need to look at how people watch TV, consider that something like Locast CAN be used similarly to any other streaming service and that there can be money to be made all around. And really, I think this has to do with donations and how they are used more than transmission rights, am I correct? Why couldn't a company like Locast try and work with the 4 majors and offer a service that ONLY offers locals? That's the part I don't get (though I assume this has to do with contracts they have with existing providers). I would think that if a cable company chooses to charge for carriage (and decline "must carry rules") then a service like Locast should be able to thrive.


OK, first off, yes, the recent ruling had to do with how Locast, as a purported non-profit, was spending their donations. The judge found that Locast's practices violated their non-profit status, which therefore invalidated their entire operation (because they were relying on a law that specifically only allows non-profits to retransmit OTA signals). The judge didn't get into the bigger issue about transmission rights (i.e. a non-profit's ability to retransmit OTA signals without the station's consent over the internet), so that's still unsettled.

Now, on to your bigger question: you're asking why Locast couldn't work with locals to strike deals with them, i.e. get their permission to retransmit their signals over the internet to paying customers. This would mean that the locals would charge Locast an agreed-upon amount per viewer and Locast would pass that cost on to their subscribers.

The main problem with that idea is that the media companies that own the broadcast networks aren't in favor of locals-only channel packages. Keep in mind that the largest local station affiliates of the big 4 networks are owned and operated by the networks themselves. Your local market (NYC) is a great example of that. WABC is owned by Disney/ABC; WNBC is owned by Comcast/NBC; WCBS is owned by ViacomCBS; and WNYW is owned by Fox. If Locast, or any other streaming linear channel pay TV service, approached WABC and asked to include them in their fledgling service, Disney would insist that they also carry the ESPN channels, the Disney channels, and Freeform. Likewise, WNBC would also want their cable channel cousins USA, MSNBC, E!, SyFy and Bravo to be carried in the service. If it was possible to create a locals-only package, it's reasonable to think that YouTube TV, Hulu Live, FuboTV, DTV Stream, Philo, and/or Frndly TV would already be doing it. (Or, for that matter, Dish and DTV satellite service too.)

IMO, the far more likely scenario we may see, in terms of paid streaming of local channels, is that these media companies will absorb their local affiliates into their direct-to-consumer streaming services. We already see this with CBS, whose local stations have a live stream included in the $10/mo premium tier of Paramount+. Seems logical that we'll eventually see the base on-demand version of Hulu include live local ABC stations. (It already includes a live stream of the national ABC News Live, BTW.) And likewise, we may see the premium tier of Peacock include live local NBC stations.

Also note that there already exists a vendor selling a locals-only channel package: your local cable company. I presume that cable TV operators can offer locals-only service due to historical local franchise agreements or some other government regulation(s) mandating it. Anyone who can stream Locast necessarily has internet service, so it's highly, highly likely that the local cable TV operator offers service at their address (even if they instead happen to get internet via a fiber, telco, or fixed wireless provider). Around here, the cost to get Limited Basic standalone TV service from Comcast (which is just the locals) is about $32/mo, plus another $10/mo if you want them in HD. If you're adding it to broadband, and streaming those TV channels via their Xfinity Stream app, it appears to add $30/mo to your bill, with HD (and 20 hrs of cloud DVR plus on-demand content) included at no extra cost. Either way, it looks like about half the cost that Comcast is charging is being passed on to the local stations, given that their stated Broadcast TV Fee is over $15/mo. (That fee is included in the prices I quoted above.)


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> OK, first off, yes, the recent ruling had to do with how Locast, as a purported non-profit, was spending their donations. The judge found that Locast's practices violated their non-profit status, which therefore invalidated their entire operation (because they were relying on a law that specifically only allows non-profits to retransmit OTA signals). The judge didn't get into the bigger issue about transmission rights (i.e. a non-profit's ability to retransmit OTA signals without the station's consent over the internet), so that's still unsettled.
> 
> Now, on to your bigger question: you're asking why Locast couldn't work with locals to strike deals with them, i.e. get their permission to retransmit their signals over the internet to paying customers. This would mean that the locals would charge Locast an agreed-upon amount per viewer and Locast would pass that cost on to their subscribers.
> 
> The main problem with that idea is that the media companies that own the broadcast networks aren't in favor of locals-only channel packages. Keep in mind that the largest local station affiliates of the big 4 networks are owned and operated by the networks themselves. Your local market (NYC) is a great example of that. WABC is owned by Disney/ABC; WNBC is owned by Comcast/NBC; WCBS is owned by ViacomCBS; and WNYW is owned by Fox. If Locast, or any other streaming linear channel pay TV service, approached WABC and asked to include them in their fledgling service, Disney would insist that they also carry the ESPN channels, the Disney channels, and Freeform. Likewise, WNBC would also want their cable channel cousins USA, MSNBC, E!, SyFy and Bravo to be carried in the service. If it was possible to create a locals-only package, it's reasonable to think that YouTube TV, Hulu Live, FuboTV, DTV Stream, Philo, and/or Frndly TV would already be doing it. (Or, for that matter, Dish and DTV satellite service too.)
> 
> IMO, the far more likely scenario we may see, in terms of paid streaming of local channels, is that these media companies will absorb their local affiliates into their direct-to-consumer streaming services. We already see this with CBS, whose local stations have a live stream included in the $10/mo premium tier of Paramount+. Seems logical that we'll eventually see the base on-demand version of Hulu include live local ABC stations. (It already includes a live stream of the national ABC News Live, BTW.) And likewise, we may see the premium tier of Peacock include live local NBC stations.
> 
> Also note that there already exists a vendor selling a locals-only channel package: your local cable company. I presume that cable TV operators can offer locals-only service due to historical local franchise agreements or some other government regulation(s) mandating it. Anyone who can stream Locast necessarily has internet service, so it's highly, highly likely that the local cable TV operator offers service at their address (even if they instead happen to get internet via a fiber, telco, or fixed wireless provider). Around here, the cost to get Limited Basic standalone TV service from Comcast (which is just the locals) is about $32/mo, plus another $10/mo if you want them in HD. If you're adding it to broadband, and streaming those TV channels via their Xfinity Stream app, it appears to add $30/mo to your bill, with HD (and 20 hrs of cloud DVR plus on-demand content) included at no extra cost. Either way, it looks like about half the cost that Comcast is charging is being passed on to the local stations, given that their stated Broadcast TV Fee is over $15/mo. (That fee is included in the prices I quoted above.)


I have no doubt you are correct. I just see this as short sighted by the networks as it could be another service they could offer to get eyeballs to watch these shows AND get money from the provider. To me it's just another method to view them like free OTA via an antenna or via cable, but instead, it's streaming. I have no doubt the cable companies play into this (and considering the largest cable company also owns NBC....another reason why that should never be allowed) who want to NOT give any new reason to customers to disconnect.

I have (well soon to be had) "Broadcast Basic" from Optimum for years. It used to be about $20 a month and worked through a clear QAM tuner. In fact at first having their Internet would actually give it to you which I found out by accident by just hooking the cable to the back of my TV after I got DirecTV. But now, it's costing me $50 (after taxes and fees) AND they are encrypting the signal so you would need a cable box, which I don't want (they are giving us one if we want it free for 2 years). So I am going to cancel it. With streaming and now an antenna I don't need it any longer. But lets say a service like Locast offered something similar, even for $15 a month, I would have paid it gladly. $5 a month was a no brainer. These companies better wise up. The TV model is changing drastically. And unless these networks want to become as niche as the cable networks, they better figure things out so you can stream locals.


----------



## NYDutch

*"Court Ruling Against Locast Gets the Law Wrong; Lets Giant Broadcast Networks Control Where and How People Watch Free TV"*

Court Ruling Against Locast Gets the Law Wrong; Lets Giant Broadcast Networks Control Where and How People Watch Free TV


----------



## NashGuy

Steveknj said:


> I have (well soon to be had) "Broadcast Basic" from Optimum for years. It used to be about $20 a month and worked through a clear QAM tuner. In fact at first having their Internet would actually give it to you which I found out by accident by just hooking the cable to the back of my TV after I got DirecTV.


Yeah, Comcast used to transmit basic cable (i.e. locals plus one or two other channels such as WGN and InHD) via clear QAM too. I don't remember the price but it was pretty cheap. Way back in the 90s, I think it was under $10/mo. In 2006, when I bought my current house, it was for some odd reason cheaper to bundle basic cable with broadband from Comcast than to just have standalone broadband. So of course I took the bundle. For a few years, I used a subscription-free Sony HD DVR in tandem with clear QAM for all my TV viewing, other than DVDs.



Steveknj said:


> But now, it's costing me $50 (after taxes and fees) AND they are encrypting the signal so you would need a cable box, which I don't want (they are giving us one if we want it free for 2 years). So I am going to cancel it. With streaming and now an antenna I don't need it any longer.


OMG, $50/mo for locals? Absolutely nuts. It's like they're begging folks to use an antenna.



Steveknj said:


> But lets say a service like Locast offered something similar, even for $15 a month, I would have paid it gladly. $5 a month was a no brainer. These companies better wise up. The TV model is changing drastically. And unless these networks want to become as niche as the cable networks, they better figure things out so you can stream locals.


Frankly, I think broadcast networks/locals being as niche as cable networks is probably a foregone conclusion. Take a look at this recent survey by Variety:

The Reckoning for Traditional TV Is Fast Approaching - Variety

They asked various age groups to rank how entertaining they find 9 different sources spanning various forms of streaming, traditional TV, video games and social media. "Broadcast TV networks" ranked in the top 3 sources for 66% of those age 60+, 44% for ages 45-59, 20% for ages 30-44 and only 13% for ages 15-29. Meanwhile, broadcast ranked in the bottom 3 for only 11% for 60+ but 26% for ages 45-59, 43% for ages 30-44, and a whopping 54% of ages 15-29. The numbers were overall very similar, just slightly worse, for cable TV networks.

Let's be honest: if anyone were developing a national+local system of video entertainment, news, sports, etc. today, from scratch, it would not look much like our existing system. IMO, here's the money quote from the Variety report:

_In the early 2040s, many of those currently propping up traditional TV will no longer be alive. The current 45-59 cohort will then be 65-79 and be network TV's last stand (as cable TV will have effectively vanished by then). Local stations, especially their news operations, and multicast networks have the next 10 years or so to utilize alternative distribution formats, such as FAST's linear streaming, in order to maintain relevancy, with the younger generations shying away from their current means of reaching homes._​
Locally-produced news and other content won't go away but the way it gets packaged and delivered (i.e. via 24/7 linear channels that also include national content from major network partners) will. If the above prediction proves true, it's certainly reasonable that the US public by the early 2040s no longer finds the current OTA TV system to be a worthwhile use of that spectrum.


----------



## Steveknj

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, Comcast used to transmit basic cable (i.e. locals plus one or two other channels such as WGN and InHD) via clear QAM too. I don't remember the price but it was pretty cheap. Way back in the 90s, I think it was under $10/mo. In 2006, when I bought my current house, it was for some odd reason cheaper to bundle basic cable with broadband from Comcast than to just have standalone broadband. So of course I took the bundle. For a few years, I used a subscription-free Sony HD DVR in tandem with clear QAM for all my TV viewing, other than DVDs.
> 
> OMG, $50/mo for locals? Absolutely nuts. It's like they're begging folks to use an antenna.
> 
> Frankly, I think broadcast networks/locals being as niche as cable networks is probably a foregone conclusion. Take a look at this recent survey by Variety:
> 
> The Reckoning for Traditional TV Is Fast Approaching - Variety
> 
> They asked various age groups to rank how entertaining they find 9 different sources spanning various forms of streaming, traditional TV, video games and social media. "Broadcast TV networks" ranked in the top 3 sources for 66% of those age 60+, 44% for ages 45-59, 20% for ages 30-44 and only 13% for ages 15-29. Meanwhile, broadcast ranked in the bottom 3 for only 11% for 60+ but 26% for ages 45-59, 43% for ages 30-44, and a whopping 54% of ages 15-29. The numbers were overall very similar, just slightly worse, for cable TV networks.
> 
> Let's be honest: if anyone were developing a national+local system of video entertainment, news, sports, etc. today, from scratch, it would not look much like our existing system. IMO, here's the money quote from the Variety report:
> 
> _In the early 2040s, many of those currently propping up traditional TV will no longer be alive. The current 45-59 cohort will then be 65-79 and be network TV's last stand (as cable TV will have effectively vanished by then). Local stations, especially their news operations, and multicast networks have the next 10 years or so to utilize alternative distribution formats, such as FAST's linear streaming, in order to maintain relevancy, with the younger generations shying away from their current means of reaching homes._​
> Locally-produced news and other content won't go away but the way it gets packaged and delivered (i.e. via 24/7 linear channels that also include national content from major network partners) will.


Your last line is the important one. I think there's still a need for local broadcasts, news, information shows and local sports. Perhaps they still bring in nationally broadcast content, but that won't be the only way to get it. But I think the way it's received is in the process of changing drastically and forcing people to buy an expensive cable package or put up a vintage 1970s antenna doesn't seem to be the way people want to go (though the antenna method is being forced on people like me). Stations need to figure this out or their viewership will shrink more than it has now.


----------



## James Long

Wow ... This thread has moved from the death of the latest service to attempt to retransmit locals without paying royalties to the death of the stations they carry.


----------



## Davenlr

James Long said:


> Wow ... This thread has moved from the death of the latest service to attempt to retransmit locals without paying royalties to the death of the stations they carry.


I can believe it. Except for football and Nascar, I have not turned on a local station for over a year. If they were to go 4KHDR, I might watch some programming just for the experience, but 720p??? Forget it. I still watch mainly linear cable channels, YouTube, HBOMax and Disney+, in that order.


----------



## Mark Holtz

The broadcasters have to deal with the fact that the way we "consume" media has changed drastically in the past 50 years. We went from having one television in the home with the programming on one of three broadcast networks plus maybe 1-2 independent stations to where we have multiple televisions in the home plus mobile phones and tablets for watching programming. Missed an episode? No more several month wait for a rerun, just stream it! And, what is the most talked about programs? Most likely on a streaming service now. We have seen the rise and fall of physical media alternatives (Beta, VHS, DVD, BluRay) and their distribution methods (video rental store, video selection at the store). 

Also, our lives have dramatically changed in the past 50 years. I'm in a middle of a major project at work, and I told my neighbor (a major Dallas Cowboys fan) that I won't be able to drop by for the Sunday games until November. I only have one day off at the moment, and I need that day for myself to run errands and do chores. Right now, I can't afford that three hour slice out of my weekend when I can watch the highlights on nfl.com .


----------



## Steveknj

Mark Holtz said:


> The broadcasters have to deal with the fact that the way we "consume" media has changed drastically in the past 50 years. We went from having one television in the home with the programming on one of three broadcast networks plus maybe 1-2 independent stations to where we have multiple televisions in the home plus mobile phones and tablets for watching programming. Missed an episode? No more several month wait for a rerun, just stream it! And, what is the most talked about programs? Most likely on a streaming service now. We have seen the rise and fall of physical media alternatives (Beta, VHS, DVD, BluRay) and their distribution methods (video rental store, video selection at the store).
> 
> Also, our lives have dramatically changed in the past 50 years. I'm in a middle of a major project at work, and I told my neighbor (a major Dallas Cowboys fan) that I won't be able to drop by for the Sunday games until November. I only have one day off at the moment, and I need that day for myself to run errands and do chores. Right now, I can't afford that three hour slice out of my weekend when I can watch the highlights on nfl.com .


I agree with your first part, things have changed, but I still think there's room for the major networks, especially on a local level because there still really isn't a better source of local news on TV than your local TV station. As for your second part, your day is no different than it was 50 years ago to be honest. People get busy and don't have time for TV or anything. There have been sources of highlights on TV since the 1980s when ESPN ran Sportscenter over and over again a good part of the day and your local channel would show more highlights than they do now. Today it's easier, and you can record your game and watch when you DO have time, but theoretically you could also do that back in the 1980s too with VHS. So I really don't think being too busy to watch TV is anything new.


----------



## James Long

Top rated series of 2020-21 (adults 18-49) ... ESPN's Monday Night Football at #3, NFL Network Thursday Night Football tied for #6, Comedy Central's South Park tied for #15. Otherwise all OTA network shows until one gets down to #30. Top shows of 2020-21 (total viewers) ... ESPN and NFL Network football and nothing else that isn't OTA in the top 70.

OTA TV isn't dead yet. "Oh, but it will be in 20 years"? Possibly, but for now the OTA networks are in a good position.


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, OTA is still a pretty good source of entertainment. In my case it seems all that I record is on OTA and even there, the most recordings are from the CW. Did record some golf from the weekend and a bit of football too. Otherwise all the channels are pretty much duds for me, and that includes the slew of ‘cable’ channels that most often only have one or two shows of interest in any given week, the rest being filled in with drivel and reruns.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Top rated series of 2020-21 (adults 18-49) ... ESPN's Monday Night Football at #3, NFL Network Thursday Night Football tied for #6, Comedy Central's South Park tied for #15. Otherwise all OTA network shows until one gets down to #30. Top shows of 2020-21 (total viewers) ... ESPN and NFL Network football and nothing else that isn't OTA in the top 70.
> 
> OTA TV isn't dead yet. "Oh, but it will be in 20 years"? Possibly, but for now the OTA networks are in a good position.


OK, but the ratings you're citing are really only comparing how popular broadcast network shows are versus cable network shows within the same year. Given that significantly more homes have access to the broadcast networks than they do to cable networks (given the use of OTA antennas), that finding isn't all that surprising. If your argument is that the broadcast networks/OTA TV will outlast the cable channel bundle, OK, I wouldn't disagree.

The problem for both broadcast and cable networks is that their overall ratings have been in decline for years now as Americans spend their screen time in other ways: streaming video, social media, and gaming.

This article has lots of charts that illustrate the fade of traditional TV, both broadcast and cable, in the past few years. (Disregard the stuff about AM/FM radio):

The State Of TV: Cord Cutting, Viewership Declines, And Older Audiences Mean Advertisers Need AM/FM Radio For Incremental Reach And The Light TV Viewer - Westwood One

Here are a couple more articles expounding on the issue:

Five Years of Network Ratings Declines, Explained - The Hollywood Reporter

The Grim TV Ratings Reality of 2020 - The Hollywood Reporter


----------



## James Long

NashGuy said:


> OK, but the ratings you're citing are really only comparing how popular broadcast network shows are versus cable network shows within the same year.


Somehow I think that if I gave numbers for the past 10 years you would say they were out of date and the market has shifted. One has to pick a time period. The last year seems fair to both OTA and cable.



NashGuy said:


> The problem for both broadcast and cable networks is that their overall ratings have been in decline for years now as Americans spend their screen time in other ways: streaming video, social media, and gaming.


Lower (I have not verified) but still leading the market.

26% of "TV" time is spent on streaming services. 64% is spent on network and cable channels. The sky may be falling, but most are watching the sky fall on broadcast TV.


----------



## harsh

Mark Holtz said:


> The transmitters for the Sacramento stations are located in Walnut Grove, not Sacramento, and are among the highest in the western United States.


Don't tell that to the Albuquerque, Denver or Spokane stations.


----------



## Mark Holtz

KXTV/KOVR tower - Wikipedia:



> Built in 1986, it is the tallest structure in California, the third-tallest guyed mast in the world (as of 2001), and the seventh tallest structure to have ever existed if the destroyed Warsaw radio mast, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the Shanghai Tower in Shanghai and the Tokyo Sky Tree in Tokyo are included.


----------



## Davenlr

Mark Holtz said:


> KXTV/KOVR tower - Wikipedia:


KATV tower - Wikipedia

Now this is my antenna farm 20 miles away. Can pick them up with a paper clip stuck in the antenna jack.

Shinall Mountain - Wikipedia


----------



## harsh

Mark Holtz said:


> KXTV/KOVR tower - Wikipedia:


A very tall tower can only do so much to make up for being situated at a significantly lower elevation.

net height = elevation + tower height


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Somehow I think that if I gave numbers for the past 10 years you would say they were out of date and the market has shifted. One has to pick a time period. The last year seems fair to both OTA and cable.


No, I still don't think you understand the point I was making, which is that those 2020-21 Nielsen ratings you were citing encompass only traditional TV, i.e. broadcast and cable, and only within a single season. They don't show how traditional TV compares to streaming, etc., nor how traditional TV viewership this season compares to past seasons.

So, as I said, if your point is that broadcast shows are currently more popular than cable shows (which is the only thing those ratings indicate), yes, I agree. And maybe that IS the point you were making. It's just not the discussion I thought we were having. Note that the author of the Variety report I cited above believes that cable TV will disappear -- presumably in the 2030s -- before broadcast TV has its last stand in the 2040s. I'd say that prediction jibes with both the point you were making as well as the point I'm making, which is that traditional TV (both broadcast and cable) is attracting fewer and fewer viewers, while other forms of screen-based entertainment account for a growing portion of Americans' free time.

Anyhow, my prediction is that the longstanding system of national networks partnering with local stations will slowly break down as eventually all (or nearly all) video consumption shifts to the internet. Because when it's all online, why do big media companies like Disney (ABC), Comcast (NBCU), ViacomCBS and Fox need to partner (and share revenue) with local OTA stations for distribution?

But local station operators like Sinclair, Nexstar, Scripps, etc. won't go away, they'll just shift to being streaming news providers focused on the local markets they serve, with their 24/7 linear streams and on-demand replays embedded in various apps and UIs. Check out how Tubi, a free ad-supported on-demand video app owned by Fox, has recently added live local news streams from around the country. You might expect them to only be local Fox affiliates but that's not the case; they include some Fox O&O affiliates, as well as local news from various stations owned by Hearst, Cox, and Scripps, some of which are affiliates of ABC, NBC or CBS.

https://help.tubitv.com/hc/en-us/articles/360057397413-About-Live-News-channels-on-Tubi


----------



## James Long

Feel free to read the rest of my post.

Thank you for your opinion about the future. 15-30 more years is a decent "life expectancy" for broadcast TV. I expect it will be further out.


----------



## harsh

I can't see cable TV going away until they fully implement multicast (that includes some way of pausing live). Unicast is a terribly poor alternative to modulated channels when it comes to bandwidth utilization.


----------



## NashGuy

James Long said:


> Feel free to read the rest of my post.


I read it all and responded to the bits worth responding to.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Streaming service Locast permanently barred from operation


----------



## NYDutch

TheRatPatrol said:


> Streaming service Locast permanently barred from operation


Appeals to follow...


----------



## James Long

crodrules said:


> I am no longer receiving the service that I had paid for, so the prorated portion of my contribution that covers the time frame from September 1, 2021 to March 17, 2022 would now be a voluntary donation, not a charge for service.


It would probably be best to stick with the facts of the case and not get to far into wild speculation.

Locast charged a fee to provide uninterrupted service for a period of time. That was the deal subscribers accepted when they made their payment/commitment. Locast subscribers (yes, subscribers) who were cut off before the end of the period of time they paid for would have every right to be annoyed that they did not get what they paid for. It was a fee for service. Subscribers were able to pay more than the required base fee for service (call that a voluntary donation) but the base minimum donation required to unlock the service was a fee for service - and income from that fee, by law, could only be spent on the service.


----------



## NYDutch

James Long said:


> It would probably be best to stick with the facts of the case and not get to far into wild speculation.
> 
> Locast charged a fee to provide uninterrupted service for a period of time. That was the deal subscribers accepted when they made their payment/commitment. Locast subscribers (yes, subscribers) who were cut off before the end of the period of time they paid for would have every right to be annoyed that they did not get what they paid for. It was a fee for service. Subscribers were able to pay more than the required base fee for service (call that a voluntary donation) but the base minimum donation required to unlock the service was a fee for service - and income from that fee, by law, could only be spent on the service.


And that's where things get a bit foggy. The subscribers paying the minimum $5/month in served areas could be considered as paying a fee for service, but the excess donations over that, including donations like the reported half-million from AT&T and whatever other large donations they received, including those donations received from unserved areas, would rightfully be donations and outside the stipulations of the copyright law exemption. I don't know if Locast needs better lawyers or better accountants for the appeals...


----------



## b4pjoe

NYDutch said:


> Appeals to follow...


Followed by more losses just like the ones before them tried. It is hard to beat a stacked deck.


----------



## James Long

NYDutch said:


> I don't know if Locast needs better lawyers or better accountants for the appeals...


Which is what I was referring to a few posts ago. Although with Locast's specific choice to focus on this clause in the law (one which prohibits spending user fees on anything except retransmission) one would expect their accountants to be prepared to defend their spending from day one.

Best case (in my opinion) would be to demonstrate real voluntary donations (from non-subscribers or clearly separate from a fee for service) that were more than the cost of expansion. Second best is to demonstrate the total cost of service ... if they can include set up costs spent prior to subscribers being connected the "extra" they charged theoretically was paying for those operational costs. Although I consider that a shaky argument when costs are split between capital and operational. Can the fee for service repay capital costs?

This has been a glacier slow process. It took years from Locast's launch until the suit led to the permanent injunction. It could take years for process to be reversed - and I'm not sure it can be. (The EFF believes it can.) Can a permanent injunction be lifted or would it take congress writing a law that would allow the injunction to be lifted under certain circumstances that Locast could actually meet?


----------



## rnbmusicfan

mwdxer said:


> After Locast shut down, there are tons of ads on places you can get locals. In about all cases, the viewer that was paying $5 a month, suddenly to get their locals from a provider has to buy some package of programming for $50 or more a month, just to get locals? With few or no diginets included. Locast had a nitch that worked, giving the viewer most of the channels in their DMA, including the popular diginets. None of these other services do that! You pay almost what cable/satellite costs just to get locals? *There needs some service that just will offer what Locast did, even if they have to pay re-transmission fees. I think many would be satisfied to pay $20 a month to get all locals and popular diginets in their market. It is not $5, but more affordable than these other services. *Maybe Locast could come back, looking at a legal venture to offer what they do now for a decent price. Many of us do not get all diginets. I have always hoped some service will open up to offer all of the diginets in a package. One reason I stay with Dish (One of many), is they offer a lot of diginets that I can easily DVR. I have been trying to get Dish to have Decades. One that is nearly impossible to get, as no one offers it. I live in Oregon, and Portland dropped it a couple years ago and since Corporate calls the shots, the locals could not offer it even it they wanted to. There is a real gap in what we can receive, even streaming. All people do not want a bunch of the popular cable channels either. I know people that are very happy with OTA translators which we have 27 of them.


I believe Local BTV had been trying to do that, although right now, it's free, so it is likely only carrying channels without retransmission fees.
LocalBTV - Free Local TV

When it first launched, it didn't advertise _free _as much, as it was more trial focused with an intent to start charging once it had enough popular channels in a market.

It appears to have an agreement with some PBS stations, NBC for just Cozi, Azteca, getTV, some Nexstar independent stations and Antenna TV and some stations that would be must-carry on a cable system. Originally, their intent was to be a subscription service and get ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox not just set up a platform for minor stations and not be able to charge anything for them.

Frankly, I'd be surprised if they signed deals with the major 4 networks, since those major networks tend to want their co-owned cable networks to be carried as well.

I'd rather Local BTV inked a deal with FrndlyTV, or signed agreements with smaller cable networks directly like Hallmark. So, those lower cost cable networks would be together with a smattering of local channels like PBS stations and Antenna TV affiliates.


----------



## NYDutch

James Long said:


> This has been a glacier slow process. It took years from Locast's launch until the suit led to the permanent injunction. It could take years for process to be reversed - and I'm not sure it can be. (The EFF believes it can.) Can a permanent injunction be lifted or would it take congress writing a law that would allow the injunction to be lifted under certain circumstances that Locast could actually meet?


A permanent injunction can be removed or changed at any time by the issuing judge on petition by either party or by a date set in the original order. A higher court can also overturn the original ruling on appeal which would have the same effect of course.


----------



## James Long

rnbmusicfan said:


> Frankly, I'd be surprised if they signed deals with the major 4 networks, since those major networks tend to want their co-owned cable networks to be carried as well.


Their biggest roadblock would be the affiliates. Network affiliates pay a lot of money for first airing rights to network content. A few years ago the "window" for being the first to air (in their area) the network content they as an affiliate purchased was larger. Streaming has cut into that window. I doubt you will see the major four networks undercutting their affiliates without a backlash.


----------



## crodrules

James Long said:


> It would probably be best to stick with the facts of the case and not get to far into wild speculation.


As far as I know, none of us here are lawyers. So, wild speculation is all we *can* do. (Or at least, it makes the conversation more interesting.) 



James Long said:


> Locast charged a fee to provide uninterrupted service for a period of time. That was the deal subscribers accepted when they made their payment/commitment. Locast subscribers (yes, subscribers) who were cut off before the end of the period of time they paid for would have every right to be annoyed that they did not get what they paid for. It was a fee for service. Subscribers were able to pay more than the required base fee for service (call that a voluntary donation) but the base minimum donation required to unlock the service was a fee for service - and income from that fee, by law, could only be spent on the service.


If that is the court's ruling, then the court should have also required Locast to refund any donations for service that cover a time period in which service is no longer being provided. (In my case, $60 for a period of 12 months which amounts to the bare minimum fee of $5 per month, minus the portion of that fee that covered the months that were actually delivered.) I look forward to receiving my refund.


----------



## James Long

Refunding service is a civil issue. This court's responsibility was ending the illegal retransmission of copyrighted material.
You'll need to start or find a class action lawsuit to collect what you are owed.


----------



## crodrules

James Long said:


> You'll need to start or find a class action lawsuit to collect what you are owed.


That is kind of where I was going with my comment. In addition to the legal mess that Locast is already involved in, Locast may very well have to fight a class action lawsuit from their own subscribers. It seems to me that it would be in Locast's best interest to at least *offer* a refund to any donor who wants one, whether or not Locast is actually *required* to do so.

Now, back to the discussion about what portion of the fees collected was a service fee, and what portion was a voluntary donation. Before I get to my point, I would like to discuss the reason why I chose an annual subscription. Locast charged a $0.50 payment processing fee for every payment made to them. So, why pay a total of $6 per year in extra fees ($0.50 x 12 months) when I could get an entire year for the same monthly fee ($60 / 12 = $5 per month) and only pay a total of $0.50 extra? I chose to save the $5.50 per year.

So, I would argue that the first $0.50 processing fee paid by any subscriber per year (12-month period of service) would still count as a service fee, since that was part of the bare minimum payment required to activate service in the first place. Any additional payment processing fees paid by monthly subscribers throughout the year would count as voluntary donations, since Locast did give the option to avoid those fees by pre-paying for an annual subscription.

Therefore, that payment processing fee was an additional source of revenue that could legally be spent on expanding their service, or any other operational expenses that are not directly related to delivering service. I just thought I would throw that out there as an idea, to see if it sticks.


----------



## mwdxer

I did mine on a monthly basis, but I did pay for Stemium to be able to DVR the TV shows. That was $50 for the year. After Locast was dropped, the only service Stemium has in the free Sling channels, which none I want to record. But that is the way it goes in my book. We all knew that Locast may lose out as the Big 4 has a lot of clout. Going against them would be difficult if not impossible. I took that chance to support something I believe in, which that hasn't changed. I still believe in what they were doing.


----------



## crodrules

mwdxer said:


> I took that chance to support something I believe in, which that hasn't changed. I still believe in what they were doing.


Yes, same here. The problem is that these broadcasters negotiate for exclusive rights to serve an entire DMA, yet do not actually deliver the free OTA signal to the entire area where they hold those rights. Somebody has to fill in that gap, whether it be a pay-TV provider or otherwise. Most pay-TV providers do not carry all of the subchannels, due to lack of must-carry requirements, lack of available bandwidth, and relative lack of demand for these lower-tier channels. That still does not mean that their content is not worth watching. They simply need a better distributor. Otherwise, open the market to more competition (national feeds, or distant affiliates) for every broadcast entity (not just the major networks) in the areas where the OTA signal does not reach.


----------



## James Long

crodrules said:


> Somebody has to fill in that gap, whether it be a pay-TV provider or otherwise.


Pay TV is doing the best they can but the laws are limiting. The reaction to "I can not legally provide rebroadcast" should be the same as "I cannot legally" do anything else one can name. Don't do it and if you feel strongly enough about it, get the laws changed so you can LEGALLY perform the service.

Of course at our level of influence "b**** and moan on the Internet" is the most that we can do. Not a lot of David Goodfriend type people on the chat sites with the ability to launch even an illegal service. And those like David Goodfriend's former employer DISH who have the ability to launch a service have found that bad things happen when they don't work within the law. Really expensive bad things.

Since the subchannels are not covered under the local-into-local laws (permitted to be carried with the station's permission but not protected under must carry/consent to carry) perhaps DISH can carry them as "Stream" channels. No satellite space needed (other than EPG) and available on the newest receivers. They should be able to be added - WITH the permission of the broadcasters.


----------



## Mark Holtz

In order for the situation to change, the law has to be changed. The NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) is a powerful lobby in Washington, DC. They look out for number one, and that is the station owners.


----------



## mwdxer

crodrules said:


> Yes, same here. The problem is that these broadcasters negotiate for exclusive rights to serve an entire DMA, yet do not actually deliver the free OTA signal to the entire area where they hold those rights. Somebody has to fill in that gap, whether it be a pay-TV provider or otherwise. Most pay-TV providers do not carry all of the subchannels, due to lack of must-carry requirements, lack of available bandwidth, and relative lack of demand for these lower-tier channels. That still does not mean that their content is not worth watching. They simply need a better distributor. Otherwise, open the market to more competition (national feeds, or distant affiliates) for every broadcast entity (not just the major networks) in the areas where the OTA signal does not reach.


A lot of sub channels are showing up streaming for free, Buzzr, Comet, TBD, Stadium, Circle, Retro, etc. But there are several that do not, METV, Decades, Get TV, etc.,


----------



## mwdxer

Mark Holtz said:


> In order for the situation to change, the law has to be changed. The NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) is a powerful lobby in Washington, DC. They look out for number one, and that is the station owners.


I am hoping that some streaming service will end putting together a good set of the diginets in time. I got my first Roku in 2014. Things have really come a long way.


----------



## NYDutch

crodrules said:


> That is kind of where I was going with my comment. In addition to the legal mess that Locast is already involved in, Locast may very well have to fight a class action lawsuit from their own subscribers. It seems to me that it would be in Locast's best interest to at least *offer* a refund to any donor who wants one, whether or not Locast is actually *required* to do so.
> 
> Now, back to the discussion about what portion of the fees collected was a service fee, and what portion was a voluntary donation. Before I get to my point, I would like to discuss the reason why I chose an annual subscription. Locast charged a $0.50 payment processing fee for every payment made to them. So, why pay a total of $6 per year in extra fees ($0.50 x 12 months) when I could get an entire year for the same monthly fee ($60 / 12 = $5 per month) and only pay a total of $0.50 extra? I chose to save the $5.50 per year.
> 
> So, I would argue that the first $0.50 processing fee paid by any subscriber per year (12-month period of service) would still count as a service fee, since that was part of the bare minimum payment required to activate service in the first place. Any additional payment processing fees paid by monthly subscribers throughout the year would count as voluntary donations, since Locast did give the option to avoid those fees by pre-paying for an annual subscription.
> 
> Therefore, that payment processing fee was an additional source of revenue that could legally be spent on expanding their service, or any other operational expenses that are not directly related to delivering service. I just thought I would throw that out there as an idea, to see if it sticks.


Given that Locast/SFCNY is a 501(c)(3) non-profit soliciting tax deductible donations per the IRS, I think a reasonable case could be made that any money received beyond the actual expenses incurred for the service per the recent court determination are in fact donations. Since the court made no determination as to how much of each donation was ruled to be a fee for service, any excess money beyond the actual service already received would not be refundable on that basis. SFCNY could decide to offer refunds of course, but that would be voluntary with no legal requirement in my opinion.


----------



## James Long

NYDutch said:


> Given that Locast/SFCNY is a 501(c)(3) non-profit soliciting tax deductible donations per the IRS, I think a reasonable case could be made that any money received beyond the actual expenses incurred for the service per the recent court determination are in fact donations. Since the court made no determination as to how much of each donation was ruled to be a fee for service, any excess money beyond the actual service already received would not be refundable on that basis. SFCNY could decide to offer refunds of course, but that would be voluntary with no legal requirement in my opinion.


It appears that Locast/SFCNY considered ALL payments to be donations. "_In the meantime, in order to keep Locast up and operating, we're asking users to contribute once a month about what it costs to get a Starbucks Caramel Macchiato. They can do so, or, they can contribute nothing and sit through our corny contribution requests. The choice is theirs._"

The IRS confirmed Locast's "501(c)(3)" status, but they do not regulate copyright law. Locast had "outside counsel" confirm that interrupting programming was permissible. "_Section 111(a)(5) expressly contemplates the "assessment" of some charge to cover some or all of the cost associated with running a translator service. That is exactly what we're doing._" Where the court disagreed was where the "assessment" exceeded the cost associated with running a translator service. (Locast's explanation can be found here.)

As for the 50c processing fee, that went to their payment processor (Recurly) and not Locast. Those paying monthly instead of annually were giving additional fees to the payment processor, not Locast.


----------



## crodrules

James Long said:


> Of course at our level of influence "b**** and moan on the Internet" is the most that we can do.


Yep, that is why I am putting in the extra effort to make sure that I am doing all that I can do.


----------



## crodrules

James Long said:


> It appears that Locast/SFCNY considered ALL payments to be donations. "_In the meantime, in order to keep Locast up and operating, we're asking users to contribute once a month about what it costs to get a Starbucks Caramel Macchiato. They can do so, or, they can contribute nothing and sit through our corny contribution requests. The choice is theirs._"


I was wondering about that. As I noted earlier, when the service was removed from their Roku app, I could occasionally get past the pop-up message about the court ruling (on my Roku stick, not on my other Rokus) and get to the section where Locast was asking for donations. You would think that they would keep the app up and running, if for no other reason than to use it to continue to ask for donations to help pay for the court costs while they are still appealing the case.  Instead, all I get now is a message from Roku stating that the channel has been removed. (See the pic I posted earlier.) On Dish receivers, the Locast app is missing entirely. Maybe if people keep contributing, it will make it easier for Locast to win their case. So, you would think that they would want to advertise to as many of their former users as possible (people who already had the Locast app).


----------



## James Long

As noted previously, following the law NOW does not clear the problem caused by not following the law in the past. Locast violated the law. $1 billion in donations now won't change the past.


----------



## NYDutch

James Long said:


> It appears that Locast/SFCNY considered ALL payments to be donations. "_In the meantime, in order to keep Locast up and operating, we're asking users to contribute once a month about what it costs to get a Starbucks Caramel Macchiato. They can do so, or, they can contribute nothing and sit through our corny contribution requests. The choice is theirs._"
> 
> The IRS confirmed Locast's "501(c)(3)" status, but they do not regulate copyright law. Locast had "outside counsel" confirm that interrupting programming was permissible. "_Section 111(a)(5) expressly contemplates the "assessment" of some charge to cover some or all of the cost associated with running a translator service. That is exactly what we're doing._" Where the court disagreed was where the "assessment" exceeded the cost associated with running a translator service. (Locast's explanation can be found here.)
> 
> As for the 50c processing fee, that went to their payment processor (Recurly) and not Locast. Those paying monthly instead of annually were giving additional fees to the payment processor, not Locast.


Yes, Locast did consider all payments to be donations in accordance with the IRS determination. All I was saying in relation to Crodrules post regarding refunds, is that if the court determined that the income used to support the service was fee for service rather than donations, then all payments received above and beyond that already used to operate the service could be considered donations, and not subject to refunds. Whether SFCNY has any moral or ethical obligation to offer refunds is a different issue.


----------



## crodrules

James Long said:


> Locast violated the law.


Isn't that entirely the question at issue here? Sticking to the facts of the case, there has been a court ruling that Locast has violated the law. (*Not *a ruling from the Supreme Court, and one that is still in the process of being reviewed for a possible appeal.) Nothing is final yet. Locast may still solicit donations for other purposes, just not for the purpose of providing a streaming service while the injunction is in effect, correct?



NYDutch said:


> Yes, Locast did consider all payments to be donations in accordance with the IRS determination. All I was saying in relation to Crodrules post regarding refunds, is that if the court determined that the income used to support the service was fee for service rather than donations, then all payments received above and beyond that already used to operate the service could be considered donations, and not subject to refunds. Whether SFCNY has any moral or ethical obligation to offer refunds is a different issue.


And that gets to my point about the time frame in which Locast must spend that fee for service (assuming they can / could do so legally). Was the entire payment for an annual subscription required to be spent toward the service at the time when the payment was received? Was any payment above and beyond the service fee for the current month of service considered a donation? Or could that payment be put in a fund to cover the future delivery of service, as the subscriber had intended? Then the question becomes what happens to the portion of that fund that covers service that has not been delivered, and now cannot be delivered? If Locast cannot legally spend that fund on anything other than providing service, then doesn't that payment need to be refunded? Or is the answer "Locast broke the law when they collected that payment, so they can continue to break the law by spending that money (collected for service) on anything they wish"?


----------



## NYDutch

crodrules said:


> Isn't that entirely the question at issue here? Sticking to the facts of the case, there has been a court ruling that Locast has violated the law. (*Not *a ruling from the Supreme Court, and one that is still in the process of being reviewed for a possible appeal.) Nothing is final yet. Locast may still solicit donations for other purposes, just not for the purpose of providing a streaming service while the injunction is in effect, correct?
> 
> And that gets to my point about the time frame in which Locast must spend that fee for service (assuming they can / could do so legally). Was the entire payment for an annual subscription required to be spent toward the service at the time when the payment was received? Was any payment above and beyond the service fee for the current month of service considered a donation? Or could that payment be put in a fund to cover the future delivery of service, as the subscriber had intended? Then the question becomes what happens to the portion of that fund that covers service that has not been delivered, and now cannot be delivered? If Locast cannot legally spend that fund on anything other than providing service, then doesn't that payment need to be refunded? Or is the answer "Locast broke the law when they collected that payment, so they can continue to break the law by spending that money (collected for service) on anything they wish"?


At the time you made the donation, and yes, lacking a court ruling at the time, you considered it a donation at the time you made it, no part of it was designated as a "fee for service". The court ruling, if it sticks, makes some part of the donation a fee for service, but how would a fee for service be determined for the unspent portion after that service ends? At that point it can no longer be a fee for service since no service exists, therefore it must be a donation.


----------



## James Long

crodrules said:


> Sticking to the facts of the case, there has been a court ruling that Locast has violated the law. (*Not *a ruling from the Supreme Court, and one that is still in the process of being reviewed for a possible appeal.) Nothing is final yet.


The current status remains valid. It will remain valid until a higher court overturns the verdict (if that ever occurs). It is fair to say that Locast violated the law.



crodrules said:


> Or is the answer "Locast broke the law when they collected that payment, so they can continue to break the law by spending that money (collected for service) on anything they wish"?


Locast broke the law when they SPENT donations collected for access on anything other than retransmission of the stations. This court case was not led by the IRS claiming that Locast violated their 501(c)(3) status. This court case was led by the broadcasters successfully claiming that Locast violated Section 111(a)(5) by spending the donation tied to receiving the service on something other than retransmission. (Locast provided a premium version of the service less interruptions begging for donations.)



NYDutch said:


> The court ruling, if it sticks, makes some part of the donation a fee for service,


If the court ruling sticks it seems the court considers all of the donations tied to receiving the service to be a fee. The accountants could probably argue that anything over the minimum unlock fee ($5 per month) was voluntary. Locast argued that every penny was voluntary - just accept the interruptions.

Since Locast claimed they were like any other non-profit using Section 111(a)(5) rights to retransmit copyrighted signals it would be interesting to look at other retransmitters. There are other sections that cover retransmission OTA by a licensed station and retransmission by a cable system. Who else is left? Is there anyone actively relying on Section 111(a)(5) and if so, how are they collecting and applying fees to retransmission costs?


----------



## crodrules

NYDutch said:


> At the time you made the donation, and yes, lacking a court ruling at the time, you considered it a donation at the time you made it, no part of it was designated as a "fee for service". The court ruling, if it sticks, makes some part of the donation a fee for service, but how would a fee for service be determined for the unspent portion after that service ends? At that point it can no longer be a fee for service since no service exists, therefore it must be a donation.


Thank you for confirming my original opinion about the time frame that I made back in post number (I lost track). (Edit: I found it. It was post number 63 of the other thread.) By ending the service (and doing so voluntarily, before any injunction was imposed forcing them to do so) Locast converted any remaining collected service fees to voluntary donations that could have legally been spent on anything else at the time when they were collected.


----------



## crodrules

James Long said:


> Locast broke the law when they SPENT donations collected for access on anything other than retransmission of the stations.


Ironically, the remedy imposed by the court made it so that "anything other than retransmission of the stations" is now all Locast *can* spend those donations on, if they spend them at all.



James Long said:


> Locast argued that every penny was voluntary - just accept the interruptions.


And I would have done exactly that, except sometimes those interruptions would pop up in the middle of actual programming, not just during the commercial breaks. If that wasn't bad enough, occasionally the app would automatically kick me off of the channel I was watching and go back to the guide immediately after the interruption, instead of resuming the feed with no action required by me. That was the part I found unacceptable. It meant that I had to keep the remote in my hand at all times if I wanted to make sure that I could immediately (or as soon as possible) go back to the program I was watching after the interruption, instead of simply leaving the TV on in the background and letting the channel play as I normally would with any other service.

Also as I noted earlier, Locast (or their payment processor) gave a financial incentive to commit to longer terms of service, in order to avoid additional fees. That is the part that burns me, when there was never any guarantee that service could actually continue uninterrupted for the entire term commitment. If Locast used this as a way to collect additional donations (considered to be voluntary) then that is great, and it sounds like such donations could legally be spent on expanding their service. If the entire donation is considered to be a fee for service, then there is no way that Locast can legally spend it now.

Would any unspent funds (collected for service, but cannot be legally spent for anything other than providing service, which now also cannot legally be done, making such funds non-spendable) simply be allowed to sit in a bank account collecting interest? If so, can the interest collected on those funds be legally spent by Locast on anything other than providing service? If so, then those funds still serve a purpose (giving Locast an additional source of income). Otherwise, there would seem to be no reason for Locast to keep that money.

It seems to me that the Locast app could still serve a purpose, by providing guide information for the stations that were previously carried, as long as Locast does not provide access to those actual feeds. This would be useful in cases where Dish does not provide the OTA guide data. (I was going to make this point in the Dish Locast app thread, but that thread is now locked.) Also as I said before, the app could still be used for the purpose of soliciting donations for other uses. (Court costs, lobbying, etc.) So, while it may not be the purpose for which the app was originally intended, it could still serve a purpose nonetheless. It is a shame to see the app go away completely.


----------



## NYDutch

One nit pick to keep in mind, all of the donations in question were made to Sports Fans Coalition of NY, not their Locast service brand. I have no idea what, if any, effect that has on the legal status of the excess donations.


----------



## James Long

NYDutch said:


> One nit pick to keep in mind, all of the donations in question were made to Sports Fans Coalition of NY, not their Locast service brand. I have no idea what, if any, effect that has on the legal status of the excess donations.


I find it odd that Locast is not mentioned on the Sports Fans Coalition of NY website at Sports Fans Coalition (where they accept donations).
Retransmission of local TV isn't listed as a priority on the Coalition's website (Mr Goodfriend and the board are listed).

Locast.org was specifically set up to promote the Locast service and solicit support for the Locast service with donations tied to removing the interruptions on the Locast service.


----------



## NYDutch

James Long said:


> I find it odd that Locast is not mentioned on the Sports Fans Coalition of NY website at Sports Fans Coalition (where they accept donations).
> Retransmission of local TV isn't listed as a priority on the Coalition's website (Mr Goodfriend and the board are listed).
> 
> Locast.org was specifically set up to promote the Locast service and solicit support for the Locast service with donations tied to removing the interruptions on the Locast service.


All true, but "Locast" is not the organization that the IRS certified as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, nor does it exist except as an operating service of SFCNY.


----------



## NYDutch

NYDutch said:


> All true, but "Locast" is not the organization that the IRS certified as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, nor does it exist except as an operating service of SFCNY.


----------



## James Long

NYDutch said:


> All true, but "Locast" is not the organization that the IRS certified as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, nor does it exist except as an operating service of SFCNY.


Did you ever donate to Locast/SFCNY ? If not, perhaps Crodrules can answer. Under what name did the donation/fee show up on the credit card? Recurly? Locast? SFCNY?


----------



## crodrules

James Long said:


> Did you ever donate to Locast/SFCNY ? If not, perhaps Crodrules can answer. Under what name did the donation/fee show up on the credit card? Recurly? Locast? SFCNY?


Oh, so now you want me to post? My deleted post may have been off-topic for this thread, but there is another thread (now locked) where it could have been moved, instead of deleting it entirely.  (Snark mode off)

Answering the question, it showed up on my bank statement as:
Purchase PayPal *LocastOrg PayPal *LocastOrg 4029357733 NY xxxxxxxxxxxx(card number deleted) $60.50

(Note: on my bank statement, the above is in all caps, but I decided not to "shout" my answer.)


----------



## James Long

Posting is a privilege. Thousand word off topic hypothetical essays are not needed in any thread. If you have further issues use the private message function.

Thank you for the on topic information about Locast.


----------



## harsh

So the upshot of the billing reveal is that the money was directed to Locast proper. That should help settle one of the major issues raised by those who are trying to formulate Locast's legal defense strategy for them.

I think everyone acknowledged that the "donation" terminology came with a "wink wink, nod nod, know what I mean?".


----------



## NYDutch

James Long said:


> Did you ever donate to Locast/SFCNY ? If not, perhaps Crodrules can answer. Under what name did the donation/fee show up on the credit card? Recurly? Locast? SFCNY?


My monthly payments appeared similar to Crodrules. I took the listing as showing the donations were made to the locast.org owner's account.


----------



## billsharpe

I never signed up for Locast as I have a rooftop antenna and can get over 100 channels. From what I've read Locast did not require donations but if none were made your viewing was interrupted asking for such.


----------



## James Long

billsharpe said:


> I never signed up for Locast as I have a rooftop antenna and can get over 100 channels. From what I've read Locast did not require donations but if none were made your viewing was interrupted asking for such.


You are correct, sir! Most of the reviews of "free" Locast that I have seen considered the level of interruptions on a scale of "very annoying" to "service unusable without paying to remove the nag screens".


----------



## crodrules

crodrules said:


> Answering the question, it showed up on my bank statement as:
> Purchase PayPal *LocastOrg PayPal *LocastOrg 4029357733 NY xxxxxxxxxxxx(card number deleted) $60.50


The part I found interesting is that it is clearly listed as a "purchase." (Exactly what is being purchased is not exactly clear.) The one word that is conspicuously *missing* from that line is "donation."


----------



## James Long

My monthly donation to Shriner's hospital shows up as a purchase. That is clearly not a purchase.


----------



## crodrules

This is the first year that I have donated to Locast. For those who have donated to them in previous years: Do you receive some kind of form in the mail from them around January (when other tax-related documents usually arrive) showing your tax-deductible donation, so you can submit it with your income tax form? If so, that is the form that would show how much of your contribution is actually considered a donation.


----------



## NYDutch

crodrules said:


> The part I found interesting is that it is clearly listed as a "purchase." (Exactly what is being purchased is not exactly clear.) The one word that is conspicuously *missing* from that line is "donation."


That's a PayPal issue, not a Locast issue. I've made nuerous donations to other organizations through PayPal with no "donation" indicated on their part.


----------



## NYDutch

crodrules said:


> This is the first year that I have donated to Locast. For those who have donated to them in previous years: Do you receive some kind of form in the mail from them around January (when other tax-related documents usually arrive) showing your tax-deductible donation, so you can submit it with your income tax form? If so, that is the form that would show how much of your contribution is actually considered a donation.


I've not gotten any annual statement from Locast or any other organization I've donated to except on request for large donations. I've never requested one from Locast though.


----------



## crodrules

NYDutch said:


> That's a PayPal issue, not a Locast issue. I've made nuerous donations to other organizations through PayPal with no "donation" indicated on their part.


Yeah, I figured that communication must have broken down somewhere in the chain: Locast, Recurly, PayPal, Huntington (my bank) - any one of those could have misinterpreted and/or misreported the type of transaction.



NYDutch said:


> I've not gotten any annual statement from Locast or any other organization I've donated to except on request for large donations. I've never requested one from Locast though.


It would be interesting to see how they itemize it. A "service fee" would not be tax-deductible. I can't deduct my Dish bill, right? In years past, Locast was not under as much scrutiny. Now, with the court ruling, and Locast seemingly needing to show how much was collected for "service" to have any chance on appeal, that may change things.

It seems to me that the "service fee" ruling is the worst-case scenario for Locast subscribers: Not only did we not receive the service that we paid for, but now we can't claim the donation as an income tax deduction, either? Yes, this sounds like a class action lawsuit waiting to happen.


----------



## NYDutch

crodrules said:


> Yeah, I figured that communication must have broken down somewhere in the chain: Locast, Recurly, PayPal, Huntington (my bank) - any one of those could have misinterpreted and/or misreported the type of transaction.
> 
> It would be interesting to see how they itemize it. A "service fee" would not be tax-deductible. I can't deduct my Dish bill, right? In years past, Locast was not under as much scrutiny. Now, with the court ruling, and Locast seemingly needing to show how much was collected for "service" to have any chance on appeal, that may change things.
> 
> It seems to me that the "service fee" ruling is the worst-case scenario for Locast subscribers: Not only did we not receive the service that we paid for, but now we can't claim the donation as an income tax deduction, either? Yes, this sounds like a class action lawsuit waiting to happen.


Apparently the IRS still says you can deduct the Locast donations. I haven't seen anything to change their determination of Locast's status. I haven't read the full court rulings though. There is nothing wrong with non-profits using some of their donations to support their infrastructure without breaking those costs out to those donating.


----------



## James Long

NYDutch said:


> Apparently the IRS still says you can deduct the Locast donations. I haven't seen anything to change their determination of Locast's status. I haven't read the full court rulings though.


Correct. The question of whether or not Locast was a 501(C)(3) was not part of the case. The case was about the legality of Locast retransmitting broadcast signals.



NYDutch said:


> There is nothing wrong with non-profits using some of their donations to support their infrastructure without breaking those costs out to those donating.


True. But, as always, one should consult with a tax attorney or financial advisor when dealing with the IRS. $60/year to Locast probably will not affect one's taxes. I donate much more to other causes and still take the standard deduction (my "much more" is apparently still under what the IRS finds acceptable).

If I understand correctly, the rules for a "Quid Pro Quo Contribution" would apply. The charity does not need to furnish a disclosure if the donation is under $75. But, as noted, Locast was not found guilty of violating IRS rules. This case was about their retransmission of television signals.


----------



## crodrules

James Long said:


> If I understand correctly, the rules for a "Quid Pro Quo Contribution" would apply.


I got it now. Thanks! So, this would be no different from making a contribution to my local PBS station during a pledge drive, in exchange for a DVD box set. Only in this case, I only received half of the DVD box set (half a year of service from Locast) that I was expecting.


----------



## NYDutch

crodrules said:


> I got it now. Thanks! So, this would be no different from making a contribution to my local PBS station during a pledge drive, in exchange for a DVD box set. Only in this case, I only received half of the DVD box set (half a year of service from Locast) that I was expecting.


But you were never promised any service in exchange for your donation, just the removal of the donation pitches. I'd say they've held up that end of the bargain fully at this point...


----------



## crodrules

NYDutch said:


> But you were never promised any service in exchange for your donation, just the removal of the donation pitches. I'd say they've held up that end of the bargain fully at this point...


Oh really? Because I still see a huge "donate" button at the locast.org site. That is not exactly a full removal of donation pitches.

So, if they had said "You can watch our service for free as long as you sit through our ads, but as soon as you donate any money to us, you will no longer be able to watch our service at all" that would be completely okay, even if that last part was not disclosed until after the money had already been paid? At least I got almost half a year. I really feel sorry for someone who paid for an annual membership that started on August 31.


----------



## James Long

Going to their site is voluntary and there isn't much reason to go there any more. The 15 seconds every 15 minutes interruptions (interrupting the program regardless of pivotal content) was "voluntary" but the price of admission was low enough it was easier to pay the price asked.

Locast was not intending to rip people off. At the moment they accepted each donation they expected to be able to be able to provide the desired service.


----------



## crodrules

Okay, I did a little more digging. The following steps did not help me (I'll explain why a little further down) but they may still be worth trying.

On the main Locast.org page, I noticed this little tidbit right below the Donate button:
_"If you cannot afford to contribute $5 per month but would like the uninterrupted version of Locast, you might qualify for the "Locast Cares" program. Click here for more details."_

Going to that link brings up the following:
_"*While Locast is a not-for-profit that depends on user donations to help us deliver on our mission, we understand that not everyone is in a position to provide financial support to our mission.*
*If you would like uninterrupted access to Locast and can't support our mission financially,* please consider applying for our Locast Cares Program. Under this program, you can get access to Locast without donation requests even if you don't make a donation. The Locast Cares Program is a limited offer. The first 50,000 qualifying applicants shall receive one year of the uninterrupted Locast service. See the "Locast Cares Program" section of our Terms of Service as well as our Application page for more details.

*Here is how to Apply*
Only three simple steps:

*Cancel Your Existing Donation*
If you are an existing donor, you must cancel your donation before you can apply for Locast Cares Program. Click here to cancel your existing donation.
If you are not a current donor, please proceed to Step 2.

*Submit Your Application Online*
Signing up is easy and fast from a web browser. 
Click Here to Apply

*Get Approved*
We'll review your completed application and let you know by email if you are approved."_

I was curious what would happen, so I followed the steps to try to cancel my donation. Unfortunately, I do not see a "Cancel Subscription" option near the top center of the "View Personal Profile" page. So, it looks like I am out of luck. I do see a "Reactivate Subscription" option there, though. As I posted earlier (may have been in another thread) Locast had already notified me that they cancelled my recurring donations. That doesn't do any good as far as cancelling in the middle of the term that had already been paid for, though. That page still says that my membership expires March 17, 2022.


----------



## NYDutch

crodrules said:


> Oh really? Because I still see a huge "donate" button at the locast.org site. That is not exactly a full removal of donation pitches.
> 
> So, if they had said "You can watch our service for free as long as you sit through our ads, but as soon as you donate any money to us, you will no longer be able to watch our service at all" that would be completely okay, even if that last part was not disclosed until after the money had already been paid? At least I got almost half a year. I really feel sorry for someone who paid for an annual membership that started on August 31.


The point is that Locast only promised to remove the ads in exchange for your donation. The service was already there and available to you both before and after your donation. At no point were you asked to pay any specific minimum amount for the service. Take your donation as a tax deduction if it'll make you feel better. I make lots of donations with no expectation of any direct benefit to me, just the hope that my money will be used to aid others in some way. I freely donated to Locast knowing full well that a part of that donation would go towards expanding the service to areas that would have no direct benefit to me.


----------



## billsharpe

Less than 15% of taxpayers itemize anymore. I doubt that the $5 donation each month ( plus the 50-cent fee) would make much difference in the tax owed even for those who itemize. I haven't itemized since we paid off our mortgage 20 years ago.


----------



## James Long

I attempt to itemize each year but the tax preparation software routinely says the standard deduction is higher.


----------



## crodrules

Like I said earlier, the Locast website would not let me cancel my existing donation. However, just for the heck of it, I went ahead and submitted my Locast Cares application anyway. Who knows? Maybe I will get a year of free service if and when they ever resume operations.


----------



## James Long

"Cancelling donation" was simply cancelling the subscription service that repeated the donation. Locast took care of that cancellation when they ceased providing a service (cancelling then future recurring payments). There are notes on their website about changing donation level and frequency that explain how to avoid being charged both monthly and annually. "Cancelling donation" did not involve any refund for unused time left on the subscribed period. It just prevented the donation from recurring.


----------



## NYDutch

crodrules said:


> Like I said earlier, the Locast website would not let me cancel my existing donation. However, just for the heck of it, I went ahead and submitted my Locast Cares application anyway. Who knows? Maybe I will get a year of free service if and when they ever resume operations.


You're basing that on the court's "fee for service" determination instead of it being a donation with no strings attached other than removing the promos. If/when an appeals court over rules the early ruling, what will you base your claim on then?


----------



## James Long

> *Opinion and Order*
> 
> Based on the undisputed facts, it is clear that the Locast service is not offered without charges other than those "necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating" its service .
> 
> The payments defendants elicit from users are charges assessed on users to avoid constant service interruptions, regardless of whether defendants euphemistically call them publicly "recommended donations". Locast users pay the minimum $5 monthly fee in exchange for month-long , uninterrupted service. It is not merely a recurring gift to a charitable cause. It is of no consequence that a number of users employ the service without paying. SFCNY still solicits, and receives, substantial amounts in charges from recipients for its uninterrupted service.
> 
> In 2020, Locast's total costs (including depreciation) were $2.436 million. According to defendants, those costs "represent what it costs to operate the Locast service in 2020, when the Locast service began operating in 16 markets and gradually expanded to 25 markets." Locast's total revenue in 2020 was $4.519 million, comprised of $4.372 million from users and $147,161 from other sources. On those undisputed facts, in 2020 Locast made far more money from user charges than was necessary to defray its costs of maintaining and operating its service.
> 
> Defendants argue that Locast's funding qualifies for the statutory exemption because payments from users are reinvested in the organization to cover costs of "maintaining an operating an expanding system", and the costs of expansion are part of the operation.
> 
> Defendants aver that contributions from users are essential to the expansion of the Locast service. They argue that disallowing use of the assessments for that purpose would prevent expansion, which they say was not intended by Congress when granting the exemptions.
> 
> But under the statute, income made from charges to recipients can only be used to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the service, not of expanding it into new markets. The argument that Section lll(a)(5) should not "prevent" a natural process of expansion misconceives the statutory structur . Retransmissions (i. e., secondary performances of copyrighted matter) are already penalized
> ("prevented") by the Copyright Law in its main section. See 17 U. S. C. § 501 ("Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner .. is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.". Nothing in Section 111 specifies that an expansion of the number of infringing transmissions is exempt from that law, and it is not for a court to infer that Congress really meant to allow them. It would have been simple for Congress to add one word to paragraph (5) to make it read ".. costs of maintaining, _expanding,_ and operating the secondary transmission service." But expansion is nowhere mentioned, and it is therefore excluded from the short, tightly-crafted grant of exemptions.
> 
> Since portions of its user payments fund Locast's expansion, its charges exceed those "necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary transmission service", which is the only exemption granted in Section 111(a) (5).
> 
> [Court document references removed. "Undisputed facts" are those that Locast did not dispute.]


This is why I believe bookkeeping may have saved Locast. They could have continued to accept a fee from users but needed to have a separate donation for expansion (or anything else not allowed by user fees). In my opinion, they should have had a 100% separate donation mechanism for service expansion and not required users to donate toward expansion in order to receive service.

Locast was finished off by "undisputed facts". They agreed that they performed the retransmission and collected funds for expansion as part of the fee they charged for preferred uninterrupted service. The only dispute they maintained was over how the law allowed them to spend the donations. An appeals court (if one hears the case) cannot overturn "undisputed facts". They can only rule on disputed issues.

20-20 hindsight. Locast should have charged $2/mo or $24/year for access and had a separate fund for expansion. Doing so would have increased the number of subscribers so they would need to watch the economy of scale to make sure their access fee remained at or below the cost of retransmission.


----------



## crodrules

NYDutch said:


> You're basing that on the court's "fee for service" determination instead of it being a donation with no strings attached other than removing the promos. If/when an appeals court over rules the early ruling, what will you base your claim on then?


Wow, that was fast! My *Locast Cares* application was Approved! 
I got this email from Locast last night:
_"Hello, 
Locast has approved your request to be part of the Locast Cares Program. This gives you uninterrupted access to Locast even though you cannot help support our mission financially. 
The Locast Cares Program is a limited offer and provides one year of uninterrupted Locast service. Your account has already been updated and you should now be able to watch Locast without donation requests. 
If you experience any issues viewing your service, please submit a ticket at https://helpcenter.locast.org. 
Thank you,
The Locast Team"
_
I logged into my account, and it still says that my membership is set to expire on March 17, 2022. So, I still have no idea if this supposed "one year of uninterrupted Locast service" (assuming service ever resumes) would last until:

One year from when my original membership was set to expire (March 17, 2023)

One year from when my Locast Cares application was approved (September 23, 2022)

One year from whatever date service actually resumes,
One year from the date service actually resumes, plus an additional credit for the previously paid (but undelivered) time, or

I would need to reapply whenever service resumes, regardless of any previously paid or previously approved free period.
In any event, I did whatever was currently in my power to try to get some kind of extension on my service period, and I did not have to make any additional donation to Locast in order to do so. So, this process (detailed in post number 195) may still be worth trying for anyone else who is in a similar situation to the one I was left in.

If the appeals court over rules the early ruling (lifts the permanent injunction) then service should resume at that point.


----------



## Mark Holtz

So, I got my Homerun receiver for my network and.... not good.










Either my antenna needs alignment, or I need a signal booster. DFW has more than two OTA channels.


----------



## AngryManMLS

I'm going with alignment. Move the antenna around a bit until you get it locked in on your towers that provide the signals. Good luck.


----------



## Steveknj

Mark Holtz said:


> So, I got my Homerun receiver for my network and.... not good.
> 
> View attachment 31728
> 
> 
> Either my antenna needs alignment, or I need a signal booster. DFW has more than two OTA channels.


I moved my antenna around and depending on the direction, I got some channels and not others. The trick was to find the sweet spot. I'm sure you will have one if you keep moving it around.


----------



## crodrules

From the section of the court order quoted above in post number 202:
_"But under the statute, income made from charges to recipients can only be used to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the service, not of expanding it into new markets. The argument that Section lll(a)(5) should not "prevent" a natural process of expansion misconceives the statutory structur . Retransmissions (i. e., secondary performances of copyrighted matter) are already penalized
("prevented") by the Copyright Law in its main section. See 17 U. S. C. § 501 ("Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner .. is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.". Nothing in Section 111 specifies that an expansion of the number of infringing transmissions is exempt from that law, and it is not for a court to infer that Congress really meant to allow them. *It would have been simple for Congress to add one word to paragraph (5) to make it read ".. costs of maintaining, expanding, and operating the secondary transmission service." But expansion is nowhere mentioned, and it is therefore excluded from the short, tightly-crafted grant of exemptions.*"_

I did some more thinking about this. If the law had been written the way the court had suggested it should be written in order to allow expansion, then what would happen if Locast had successfully expanded to cover every market in the United States? Would Locast then be allowed to expand even further than that? Where do they go from there? Could funds collected from subscribers in the United States be used to cover the costs of delivering stations in Canada and Mexico? Where does it end? It seems to me that if Locast had not only been allowed, but actually *required*, to spend all remaining funds collected toward expanding their service, then it would not really be quite as simple as the court seems to be envisioning.


----------



## James Long

The law does not allow user fees to be used for expansion. Any "what ifs" beyond that is irrelevant.


----------



## crodrules

James Long said:


> The law does not allow user fees to be used for expansion. Any "what ifs" beyond that is irrelevant.


On the flip side of that, how are they supposed to be able to launch a service in the first place? Carrying their very first channel in their very first market would be an "expansion." Some reasonable amount of expansion must be allowed, or else that section of law holds absolutely no meaning at all. There is plenty of precedent for courts finding that Congress does not pass laws that cannot actually be used. If Congress put the exception into the law, then that means that Congress intended for that exception to actually be used by *someone*. The questions then are: who, where, when, how, and why?


----------



## James Long

crodrules said:


> Some reasonable amount of expansion must be allowed, or else that section of law holds absolutely no meaning at all.


The service can expand all that the provider wants. The law does not prohibit expansion. The law (as written) prohibits spending the donations users paid for access on expansion. They needed to get their expansion donations from sources other than users paying for service. In my opinion a separate "service expansion fund" would have solved the problem - going back and retroactively reclassifying donations does not solve the problem.


----------



## crodrules

James Long said:


> The law (as written) prohibits spending the donations users paid for access on expansion.


I still say that must leave Locast with a whole lot of money that they are now no longer allowed to spend on anything. Somebody must be earning interest on those funds, unless Locast's access to the money is now locked completely (seized by the government).


----------



## krel

NYDutch said:


> Dish breaks out the charge to subscribers for the locals package that can be opted out, not the actual cost per station. I expect the local stations are not getting paid for those subscribers that opt out.


it would be interesting to see the breakdowns of the cost per stations along with who makes what..


----------



## NYDutch

krel said:


> it would be interesting to see the breakdowns of the cost per stations along with who makes what..


Yes, just like it would be interesting to know the actual dollar figures involved in the retrans agreements. But don't hold your breath waiting for either one to be made public...


----------



## NYDutch

crodrules said:


> I still say that must leave Locast with a whole lot of money that they are now no longer allowed to spend on anything. Somebody must be earning interest on those funds, unless Locast's access to the money is now locked completely (seized by the government).


SFCNY is the underlying non-profit entity that received the donations. I don't believe the government would have any basis for seizing any Locast related funds from them since the court ruling did not include any financial penalties.


----------



## b4pjoe

Don't worry about the money. It will go to their lawyers!


----------



## crodrules

NYDutch said:


> SFCNY is the underlying non-profit entity that received the donations. I don't believe the government would have any basis for seizing any Locast related funds from them since the court ruling did not include any financial penalties.


Well, if the money is not being spent (per the court ruling that it cannot be spent on anything other than providing service) but is earning interest, then I wonder if that interest income would still be attributable to income earned "from service fees." Or, would such income be indirect enough that the *interest* earned on those funds would be allowed to be spent toward expanding service? (This may not help Locast, while they are subject to the permanent injunction. However, any other organization thinking about setting up a similar service may be interested in the legal status of such interest income.)


----------



## NYDutch

crodrules said:


> Well, if the money is not being spent (per the court ruling that it cannot be spent on anything other than providing service) but is earning interest, then I wonder if that interest income would still be attributable to income earned "from service fees." Or, would such income be indirect enough that the *interest* earned on those funds would be allowed to be spent toward expanding service? (This may not help Locast, while they are subject to the permanent injunction. However, any other organization thinking about setting up a similar service may be interested in the legal status of such interest income.)


I expect the legal fees are adding up as Mr. Goodfriend and the EFF prepare for an appeal of the judges mis-application of the law (my opinion). At no time did Locast ask for payment of any "service fees", they only asked for "donations" that were rewarded with the removal of the donation pitch. The court ruled that the law did not allow the donations to be used for expansion, but neither does the law prohibit expansion. The court ruled that all the donations were in fact "service fees", when the law only says "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." In my opinion, the court can't have it both ways. If the donations collected are considered by the court to be "assessments" that can only be used to maintain the service, then any amounts collected above those costs must by definition actually be "donations" to the non-profit that can be used for other purposes. Such as expansion of the service...

I'm really looking forward to seeing what the appeals process shows us. I won't be surprised to see the 10th Amendment brought up. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."


----------



## crodrules

Another thing that occurred to me: If another organization tried to set up a similar service while Locast is still subject to the permanent injunction, would Locast be allowed to donate to that other organization? Or does the injunction prohibit Locast from having anything to do with any streaming service, even if Locast is not the organization operating it?



NYDutch said:


> I'm really looking forward to seeing what the appeals process shows us. I won't be surprised to see the 10th Amendment brought up. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."


I like the principle of the 10th Amendment. Of course, that could lead to Locast (or any successor organization) needing to obtain a license from each state in which the service operates.


----------



## NYDutch

crodrules said:


> Another thing that occurred to me: If another organization tried to set up a similar service while Locast is still subject to the permanent injunction, would Locast be allowed to donate to that other organization? Or does the injunction prohibit Locast from having anything to do with any streaming service, even if Locast is not the organization operating it?


Keep in mind that Locast is not the non-profit collecting the donations, SFCNY is.In reading the court ruling, I don't see anywhere that they say how the donations can be spent since the Locast service is shut down.



> I like the principle of the 10th Amendment. Of course, that could lead to Locast (or any successor organization) needing to obtain a license from each state in which the service operates.


State licenses would only be needed if the individual states passed their own laws prohibiting the service. I don't see that happening, so the "or to the people" part of the 10th would apply as I see it.


----------



## James Long

Broadcasters And Locast Agree To Settle Streaming Battle
by Wendy Davis @wendyndavis, October 15, 2021

Broadcasters have agreed to settle their dispute with Locast, a now shuttered streaming television service, according to court papers filed Thursday with U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton in New York.

The companies say they "believe they have negotiated a resolution of all issues in the case," but don't provide any details.


----------



## NYDutch

A sad ending to a worthy effort...


----------

