# Locast adds Miami and West Palm Beach, FL DMA's



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

From non-profit streaming service Locast:

"You can now stream local broadcast TV channels in Miami and West Palm Beach, for free."

"We are pleased to now deliver more than 65 local TV channels to viewers within the Miami-Dade/Ft. Lauderdale and West Palm Beach/Ft. Pierce designated market areas in Florida."

Home - Locast


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

While this particular addition to Locast doesn't apply to me, thanks for posting as I completely spaced out that Locast was out there.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I am still surprised that it continues to exist.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

James Long said:


> I am still surprised that it continues to exist.


The Big 4 haven't managed to shut them down so far. I think it's interesting that they didn't even try to get a TRO. Maybe their lawyers figured out it's tough to prove irreparable harm when they didn't take any action for almost two years. I'd really like to see the lawsuits get settled though...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Locast's page says the broadcasters were denied an injunction. They read that as a major victory.

Injunctions stop the damages from accruing but can do harm if the defendant eventually wins. Allowing the infringement to continue in a case like this will likely lead to damages that will never be paid if the plaintiff eventually wins. The court has to decide who will be harmed most. It is easy to err on the side of the plaintiff. It should not be read as the final outcome of the case.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

James Long said:


> I am still surprised that it continues to exist.


why??? i know they were sued. i think everyone should have acces to local t.v. for news and weather and ermergencies. the stations need to realize is that people might not be able to get them via OTA.. or there's elderly that can't climb a roof to install an antenna..


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

James Long said:


> Locast's page says the broadcasters were denied an injunction. They read that as a major victory.
> 
> Injunctions stop the damages from accruing but can do harm if the defendant eventually wins. Allowing the infringement to continue in a case like this will likely lead to damages that will never be paid if the plaintiff eventually wins. The court has to decide who will be harmed most. It is easy to err on the side of the plaintiff. It should not be read as the final outcome of the case.


Yes, the networks lost the injunction case, and a TRO would normally have preceded that action as a more immediate action. That the TRO request didn't happen and they lost the injunction case just adds more ammunition for Locast to prevail in the lawsuit. The networks are up against the IRS in trying to claim SFCNY/Locast is not really a non-profit after the IRS ruled they are.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The FCC licenses the off-the-air channels (OTA) to serve my designated market area (DMA). My San Francisco Bay Area DMA is so large that those in 60%+ of the geographic area cannot receive the channels. I really don't know what kind of argument can be made against a statement that Locast is my antenna.

I have "cut-the-cord" in favor of streaming thereby dumping cable channels. I don't believe I should be prevented from receiving OTA channels via a non-profit streaming service that simply acts as my antenna.

As far as I am concerned cable/satellite revenue those channels receive comes only because most within the OTA _reception_ area want some cable-only channels and it's convenient to have locals avoiding having an antenna.

If the FCC reclaims all OTA frequencies for other public benefit forcing local channels to be "cord-only", then of course I should pay for them.


----------



## wmb (Dec 18, 2008)

phrelin said:


> The FCC licenses the off-the-air channels (OTA) to serve my designated market area (DMA)...
> 
> I have "cut-the-cord" in favor of streaming...
> 
> ...


A little spitballing here...

The FCC could use the spectrum.

Streaming is becoming ubiquitous.

Who knows what the future of cable is, at least long term. Satellites future look bleak.

Fewer and fewer people have antennas and built in TV tuners aren't free.

What does the future of local broadcasters look like?

Locast offers one way for locals to get distributed and the FCC repurpose the spectrum.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> I really don't know what kind of argument can be made against a statement that Locast is my antenna.


The same argument could be made that cable or satellite is just your antenna to receive local stations. I am sure the cable and satellite companies would retransmit locals at no charge if they did not have to pay fees to any station for carriage. But the networks don't like the idea of a for profit company retransmitting their signals without a fee.

Locast is not for profit. They are taking advantage of a clause intended to allow small cable systems to provide coverage to a community. Streaming service to any household within a market? Not even on the horizon when the law was written. They are not simply retransmiting the signal, they are converting it to a different medium.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Locast's side of the story:

"Finally, in dozens of pages of legal analysis provided to Sports Fans Coalition, an expert in copyright law concluded that under this particular provision of the copyright statute, secondary transmission may be made online, the same way traditional broadcast translators do so over the air."

https://helpcenter.locast.org/portal/en/kb/articles/how-does-locast-org-comply-with-copyright


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The complaint can be read here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217/gov.uscourts.nysd.520217.1.0_1.pdf


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> The same argument could be made that cable or satellite is just your antenna to receive local stations. I am sure the cable and satellite companies would retransmit locals at no charge if they did not have to pay fees to any station for carriage.


IMHO the critical difference is that cable companies carry cable-only channels for a profit and having the locals makes the cable companies attractive. Locast retransmits the locals from a DMA to people in the DMA. Personally, I would have no problem with a rule that would allow the locals to charge once they have repeaters in place that cover 95% of the DMA geography to which they are essentially assured exclusive rights to advertise within by the federal government.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

One critical difference the law suit points to is that the non-profit translator stations the law is intended to support ASK for permission to retransmit each station. Locast is operating without seeking permission.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

James Long said:


> One critical difference the law suit points to is that the non-profit translator stations the law is intended to support ASK for permission to retransmit each station. Locast is operating without seeking permission.


Maybe I missed it, but I'm not seeing the mentioned "permission" provision in 17 U.S. Code § 111. For those interested, (a)(5) is the pertinent section with the non-profit exemption.

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


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"While Locast acknowledged that it was engaged in the unauthorized retransmission of copyrighted content, it claimed that it was immunized from liability for that copyright infringement by an exemption in the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 111(a)(5). That narrow exemption permits local governments and other not-for-profit entities to operate booster and translator stations, which amplify broadcast signals so they can reach antennas in nearby areas otherwise unable to receive them. In order to avoid copyright liability, the local governments and other non-profit entities must retransmit the signals “without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage.” Id. This exemption was adopted against the backdrop of the provision of the Communications Act that requires booster and translator stations to have “express authority of the originating station” in order to retransmit the station’s signal. 47 U.S.C. § 325(a)."


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Yet the section that Locast is basing their defense on is titled "Certain Secondary Transmissions Exempted". It'll be interesting to see how the court interprets those provisions...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> Yet the section that Locast is basing their defense on is titled "Certain Secondary Transmissions Exempted". It'll be interesting to see how the court interprets those provisions...


The section begins with NO and then gives a detailed list of exemptions - none of which apply to Locast (according to the plantiff's argument).
With the changes in the distants laws many of those exemptions no longer apply at all.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

James Long said:


> The section begins with NO and then gives a detailed list of exemptions - none of which apply to Locast (according to the plantiff's argument).
> With the changes in the distants laws many of those exemptions no longer apply at all.


As I said, it'll be interesting to see how the court(s) see it...


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

I've always wondered why local channels never wanted their broadcasts live streamed. Isn't it to their benefit to reach as many people as possible? I mean... they're already providing a free OTA signal to their market (or at least they are suppose to be... some people may be out of range).

Are the local channel providing the live streamed version? Or is Locast investing in that cost?

If Locast is just capturing an OTA signal and then streaming that signal out to people in that channel's market... what's the big deal? The local stations aren't out any extra costs AND they're getting their channel out to people in the far reaches of their market.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Locast is paying the cost of receiving and redelivering the signal. The stations are not assisting (and via the lawsuit are attempting to stop the rebroadcast).

Over the past few years broadcast stations and their networks have increasingly relied on the payments they receive from cable and satellite carriers. Every viewer that watches without payment cuts in to the income they collect from rebroadcast. The "we're just trying to help" argument is suspect when the person behind Locast is a former employee and lobbyist for DISH Network and AT&T|DIRECTV has made donations to support Locast's operations. Major companies providing a way to receive the channels without paying.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

evotz said:


> I've always wondered why local channels never wanted their broadcasts live streamed. Isn't it to their benefit to reach as many people as possible? I mean... they're already providing a free OTA signal to their market (or at least they are suppose to be... some people may be out of range).
> 
> Are the local channel providing the live streamed version? Or is Locast investing in that cost?
> 
> If Locast is just capturing an OTA signal and then streaming that signal out to people in that channel's market... what's the big deal? The local stations aren't out any extra costs AND they're getting their channel out to people in the far reaches of their market.


Over the years retransmission fees from cable and satellite providers have become a major part of the stations income, even exceeding ad revenues. The stations assume that those streaming their signal for free would otherwise be getting them from pay sources and don't want to give that up. The retrans fees paid by cable and satellite operators last year came to almost $12 *billion *dollars, up 11% from 2018. The "Broadcaster Investor" group projects that the fees will hit $16.2 billion by 2024. Still wondering why the cable/sat providers balk at some increase demands?


----------

