AT&T Just Donated $500,000 to Locast

[NashGuy]

Why? There is no partisan divide over broadcast related issues, they are both totally beholden to corporate interests in that area. If for no other reason than they know they will get no pressure from constituents for doing what the broadcast industry wants. There aren't a million people all over the country calling their congressman telling them "if you don't renew DNS I'll vote for the other guy". Stuff like that or Locast is not even on voter's radar, so it is easy for them to just do what the lobbyists pay them to do.

Besides, the senate can amend the bills that come from the house and then it is resolved in a conference committee - which will have senior people who are most likely to have been accepting money from NAB lobbyists for years.

There has been a clear difference in positions held by GOP-appointed vs. Dem-appointed members of the FCC in recent years. And the parties seem to be moving further apart in terms of general governing philosophy/branding. I'm not completely discounting what you're saying but I don't believe that it makes zero difference on this issue which party controls the House (or the Senate).

 

[NYDutch]

Is Locast simply passing through the unmolested ATSC 1.0 MPEG-2 TS the same way that a OTA translator does? No, they're not. They're transcoding the signal (without the original broadcaster's permission) and then distributing it over the internet, a technology that does not naturally impede the geographic reach or reception of the signal as OTA distribution does. (Yes, Locast chooses to impose geofencing on their app's access to distant streams but, from your perspective on this matter, under what theory of the existing law would you say that is necessary?)

All that said, yes, the court *might* allow Locast's current behavior to stand, saying that, even though it involves the unauthorized transcoding of the signal, and even though it allows for pristine, friction-free redistribution over the internet, it's still covered within STELA's non-profit safe harbor. But if the court were to allow that, I think they might well also require that the transcoding done by Locast lock their streams to their own app and/or other apps operated by non-profit groups. Allowing their Locast streams to be ingested by an app operated by a for-profit company (e.g. AT&T) -- especially a pay TV operator/MVPD -- would seem to violate the spirit of the law and definitely undermine the whole retransmission consent scheme that's been in place since the early 90s.

I see nothing in the entire retransmission laws that requires distributing the signal in exactly the same format as it was originally broadcast. Translators have channel shifted for instance, for many years, and wired distribution systems have converted digital to analog since the digital switch began, so there's plenty of precedent for modifying the signal for distribution purposes. I expect Locast is geofencing to limit the available reception to the same general area that the OTA signal serves to avoid any attack from broadcasters outside of that area for distributing the signal over a wider area. Or maybe it allows them to duplicate services among the various cities without the need for additional bandwidth or the like.

As far as the app goes, it was Locast that developed the app for the many streaming devices its available for. I can't say with any certainty whether Dish and AT&T had any direct involvement in developing the versions for their sat receivers, but it just as well may have been an offer from Locast to include them that led to Locast creating those versions.

At this point, we've probably bounced this ball back and forth enough while still raising nothing but speculation, so I think I'm going to just sit back and wait to see if a court case is forthcoming at some point. Then we can discuss the pluses and minuses of that.

 

[Radioguy41]

Not as much as you think...the digital transition eliminated OTA for many...its estimated only 10% still use OTA...you can't just use rabbit ears like the good ole days...for many anyways...locast isn't HD..yet thats another stumbling block...it comes down to hard cold cash for networks and stations...when the gravy stops the law suits start

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Quote your source for that claim. Actual estimates place that number between 20 and 25% with a steady growth every year since the transition. The nearest transmitter to me is over 40 miles away yet as of a rescan this morning I lock 69 channels. That's more than 3X the number of channels I received via antenna prior to the digital transition.

 

[NashGuy]

I see nothing in the entire retransmission laws that requires distributing the signal in exactly the same format as it was originally broadcast. Translators have channel shifted for instance, for many years, and wired distribution systems have converted digital to analog since the digital switch began, so there's plenty of precedent for modifying the signal for distribution purposes. I expect Locast is geofencing to limit the available reception to the same general area that the OTA signal serves to avoid any attack from broadcasters outside of that area for distributing the signal over a wider area. Or maybe it allows them to duplicate services among the various cities without the need for additional bandwidth or the like.

As far as the app goes, it was Locast that developed the app for the many streaming devices its available for. I can't say with any certainty whether Dish and AT&T had any direct involvement in developing the versions for their sat receivers, but it just as well may have been an offer from Locast to include them that led to Locast creating those versions.

At this point, we've probably bounced this ball back and forth enough while still raising nothing but speculation, so I think I'm going to just sit back and wait to see if a court case is forthcoming at some point. Then we can discuss the pluses and minuses of that.

Fair enough. I'd only point out that the example you raise that "wired distribution systems have converted digital to analog since the digital switch began" isn't really an argument favoring your position here because those "wired distribution systems" are MVPDs, who necessarily must compensate the local channels per their negotiated agreement to carry them on their wired systems (or which are carrying the channel without paying because the channel invokes the "must-carry" rule).

 

[NYDutch]

Fair enough. I'd only point out that the example you raise that "wired distribution systems have converted digital to analog since the digital switch began" isn't really an argument favoring your position here because those "wired distribution systems" are MVPDs, who necessarily must compensate the local channels per their negotiated agreement to carry them on their wired systems (or which are carrying the channel without paying because the channel invokes the "must-carry" rule).

Actually, I'm thinking of places like campgrounds, hotels, hospitals, etc, that have coax distribution systems feeding multiple sites. The campground we were in a few weeks ago for example, offered about 80 cable channels at each site, but the feeds are all analog. That's fairly common where existing analog distribution systems were only upgraded at the head end to receive digital format programming that was then converted to analog for distribution over the existing system. And my wife just reminded me of several campgrounds we've been to where OTA signals are distributed to the sites in analog format. That was done because the locations have very nearly non-existent OTA reception near ground level, so the park installed a high remote antenna to serve the guests. In one case, the OTA antennas are on a 125' park owned tower that also provides cell service.

 

[Juan]

Compared to 100% in the 1980s...it all depends where you live ...the number of frequencies for OTA continues to shrink...look up repack...this means fewer subchannels as traditional channels share frequencies...I am 100% for OTA but its going away...sooner rather than later..frequencies will reassigned for newer technologies

Quote your source for that claim. Actual estimates place that number between 20 and 25% with a steady growth every year since the transition. The nearest transmitter to me is over 40 miles away yet as of a rescan this morning I lock 69 channels. That's more than 3X the number of channels I received via antenna prior to the digital transition.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[NYDutch]

Compared to 100% in the 1980s...it all depends where you live ...the number of frequencies for OTA continues to shrink...look up repack...this means fewer subchannels as traditional channels share frequencies...I am 100% for OTA but its going away...sooner rather than later..frequencies will reassigned for newer technologies

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

In at least some areas, the addition of a shared sub-channel has added to the sub-channel count rather than decreased it.

 

[NashGuy]

Actually, I'm thinking of places like campgrounds, hotels, hospitals, etc, that have coax distribution systems feeding multiple sites. The campground we were in a few weeks ago for example, offered about 80 cable channels at each site, but the feeds are all analog. That's fairly common where existing analog distribution systems were only upgraded at the head end to receive digital format programming that was then converted to analog for distribution over the existing system. And my wife just reminded me of several campgrounds we've been to where OTA signals are distributed to the sites in analog format. That was done because the locations have very nearly non-existent OTA reception near ground level, so the park installed a high remote antenna to serve the guests. In one case, the OTA antennas are on a 125' park owned tower that also provides cell service.

Those hotels and hospitals are all paying for access to some form of cable TV. As for niche cases like a campground that's redistributing the free OTA signal in analog format on coax, my guess is that it's simply not a big enough deal to even capture the attention of the local stations' lawyers. Why bother?

 

[NYDutch]

Those hotels and hospitals are all paying for access to some form of cable TV. As for niche cases like a campground that's redistributing the free OTA signal in analog format on coax, my guess is that it's simply not a big enough deal to even capture the attention of the local stations' lawyers. Why bother?

But the point still remains that I see nothing in the law prohibiting reformatting the signal for distribution. Paying retransmitters may have something like that included in their agreements with the stations, but obviously Locast doesn't have that problem. If a lawsuit eventually comes along, as I expect it will at some point, it'll be interesting to see what the basis of it is. Apparently the broadcasters lawyers haven't found a winnable issue yet. Think about it, they didn't even let Aereo get on the air in one city before they filed, and Locast is going on two years and is now in 13 cities.

 

[NashGuy]

But the point still remains that I see nothing in the law prohibiting reformatting the signal for distribution. Paying retransmitters may have something like that included in their agreements with the stations, but obviously Locast doesn't have that problem. If a lawsuit eventually comes along, as I expect it will at some point, it'll be interesting to see what the basis of it is. Apparently the broadcasters lawyers haven't found a winnable issue yet. Think about it, they didn't even let Aereo get on the air in one city before they filed, and Locast is going on two years and is now in 13 cities.

I think what you're not considering is that judges, when evaluating the claims of both sides, may not adhere to a strict letter-of-the-law reading, or that rather than evaluating the law within the context of the era in which it was written (1990), they will apply the realities of 2019. I expect that the court will attempt to construct a new evaluation of the law, taking into account new technologies (i.e. the internet) that have arisen since the law was passed, while aiming to preserve the spirit of the law and its balance of interests on all sides (local stations vs. MVPDs vs. general public).

 

[Juan]

But the point still remains that I see nothing in the law prohibiting reformatting the signal for distribution. Paying retransmitters may have something like that included in their agreements with the stations, but obviously Locast doesn't have that problem. If a lawsuit eventually comes along, as I expect it will at some point, it'll be interesting to see what the basis of it is. Apparently the broadcasters lawyers haven't found a winnable issue yet. Think about it, they didn't even let Aereo get on the air in one city before they filed, and Locast is going on two years and is now in 13 cities.

only because very few people use it

 

[NYDutch]

only because very few people use it

And you base that on what? According to Locast, it costs $150,000 to $250,000 to bring each city online, plus ongoing costs for bandwidth, etc. There must be a lot of donating users out there to support that effort for now 13 cities. Plus however many freeloading users there are...

 

[NYDutch]

I think what you're not considering is that judges, when evaluating the claims of both sides, may not adhere to a strict letter-of-the-law reading, or that rather than evaluating the law within the context of the era in which it was written (1990), they will apply the realities of 2019. I expect that the court will attempt to construct a new evaluation of the law, taking into account new technologies (i.e. the internet) that have arisen since the law was passed, while aiming to preserve the spirit of the law and its balance of interests on all sides (local stations vs. MVPDs vs. general public).

Maybe this law firm's white paper will give you some insight into the likely legal status of Locast:

https://www.locast.org/app/uploads/2018/11/Locast-White-Paper.pdf

 

[Juan]

When it really kicks in and stations lose revenue things will change

And you base that on what? According to Locast, it costs $150,000 to $250,000 to bring each city online, plus ongoing costs for bandwidth, etc. There must be a lot of donating users out there to support that effort for now 13 cities. Plus however many freeloading users there are...

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[NYDutch]

When it really kicks in and stations lose revenue things will change

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

That assumes the stations lawyers can come up with a valid legal basis to go after Locast. That hasn't happened yet. Have you read through the lawyers white paper I posted a link to in my previous post?

 

[Juan]

That assumes the stations lawyers can come up with a valid legal basis to go after Locast. That hasn't happened yet. Have you read through the lawyers white paper I posted a link to in my previous post?

no..you still dont get it..there is no free lunch..not even a nibble

 

[NYDutch]

It isn't up to me to "get it". We'll see if a judge "gets it" when and if a case gets to court...

 

[slice1900]

There has been a clear difference in positions held by GOP-appointed vs. Dem-appointed members of the FCC in recent years. And the parties seem to be moving further apart in terms of general governing philosophy/branding. I'm not completely discounting what you're saying but I don't believe that it makes zero difference on this issue which party controls the House (or the Senate).

In certain things like net neutrality, sure. Those are what makes the news, because there is disagreement. When they vote 5-0 on something it isn't newsworthy.

Some issues don't really cut across partisan republican/democrat lines at all but more subtle divisions (those are a bad proxy for political views which are really on (at least) two axes, i.e. "traditional" liberal and conservative (not the modern meanings, but how it was up until a few decades ago where liberal republicans and conservative democrats weren't a non-sequitor) on the first axis and libertarian ("small l", don't confuse it with the "big L" Libertarian party that has moved far away from its traditional roots and become essentially an offshoot of the republican party these days) and authoritarian on the second axis. Look at stuff like renewals of the PATRIOT ACT for example - you see those on the extreme right of the republicans and the extreme left of the democrats banding together to vote against it, but losing of course because there aren't nearly enough of them. Because most of congress whether democrat or republican are basically authoritarian/corporatist conformists on that second axis.

So just because there are fights in the FCC about net neutrality, universal service fees and so forth don't assume they will fight about DNS or whether or not Locast's business model should survive. I don't see anything in either party's platform that would suggest either party gives a damn about either. Of course that could change in a moment's notice if someone thought they could get mileage out of making it a campaign issue. From the time Clinton was elected until Trump was elected both parties agreed tariffs were a bad thing, so they were almost never discussed. Now republicans are defending tariffs for the first time in their entire existence as a party, and democrats are against them even though 30-40 years ago they were talked about all the time by democrats and were even in their party platforms.

 

[NashGuy]

Maybe this law firm's white paper will give you some insight into the likely legal status of Locast:

https://www.locast.org/app/uploads/2018/11/Locast-White-Paper.pdf

Ah, yes, a single white paper from one law firm settles it, then. No point in getting an opposing law firm to represent the far more powerful interests on the other side.

Look, I'm not claiming that I KNOW how this matter would be resolved by the courts (that's your position), only that it's an open question and that if Locast grows significantly larger, they WILL be taken to court, assuming that they don't get squashed first legislatively through amended wording to the STELA statute up for renewal later this year. I disagree with you that Locast has an airtight case and I disagree even further with the idea that for-profit MVPDs can exploit a loophole in the law by donating money to a non-profit intermediary to help the non-profit act as a middleman delivery platform to give the MVPD free access to broadcast streams for incorporation into the MPVD's subscription cable TV packages.

 

[NYDutch]

Ah, yes, a single white paper from one law firm settles it, then. No point in getting an opposing law firm to represent the far more powerful interests on the other side.

Look, I'm not claiming that I KNOW how this matter would be resolved by the courts (that's your position), only that it's an open question and that if Locast grows significantly larger, they WILL be taken to court, assuming that they don't get squashed first legislatively through amended wording to the STELA statute up for renewal later this year. I disagree with you that Locast has an airtight case and I disagree even further with the idea that for-profit MVPDs can exploit a loophole in the law by donating money to a non-profit intermediary to help the non-profit act as a middleman delivery platform to give the MVPD free access to broadcast streams for incorporation into the MPVD's subscription cable TV packages.

Of course one unsolicited white paper doesn't settle anything. But it does present some interesting legal viewpoints, which is why I posted it. I never said Locast had an airtight case. I've said all along it will be interesting to see what an eventual lawsuit is based on though. Anything short of a significant change to the law looks like it could be a tough battle for the broadcasters. They sure didn't wait this long to go after Aereo, did they...