Locast Court Ruling

#6

The actual judgement is only a few pages and a quick read: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21052725/locast.pdf

Some highlights, which paint a confusing picture:

In December of 2019 , the parties agreed to limit the scope of the litigation to the issue of applicability of the Section lll(a) (5) exemption, which is the sole question before the Court on these two motions .

Plaintiffs set forth several arguments that defendants' Locast service does not come within the statutory exemption. For the most part, they present such conflicting characterizations of the facts that they are more suited to trial than a summary disposition.
But summary judgment is appropriate with respect to the requirement that defendants ' service is conducted ". . 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 ."

Plaintiffs ' motion for partial summary judgement is granted. Defendants ' motion for summary judgement is denied.

1 Like
Locast vs Antenna
#7

One can only hope.

#8

i sure as hell hope this isn't as bad as it looks, but it sure doesn't look good.

i just called spectrum looking for the lowest package they have for locals (OTA isn't an option because i have a huge hill across the street in the direction of the towers)... $70 a month for the lowest package available w/ cablecard.

boy, i wonder why the networks don't want locast to succeed...what a ****ing racket.

5 Likes
#9

Most judges won't grant summary judgements because they usually are appealed.

#10

Good. Now we don't have to worry about the NFL behind a paywall, at least until ATSC 3.0 fully expands.

#11

So long as they are on the primary .1 channel, they cannot be paywalled. That is against the law and FCC rules, and a modern Congress is certainly not going to ever be able to pass anything to change a law like that.

If they move to sub-channel, then all bets are off! But that would not be the most profitable route for the NFL, so they won't be interested.

This ruling also has no material impact right now, anyway. All it says is that the plaintiffs may have a valid argument and everyone agrees on the material facts, so it is free to go to trial. It all comes down to this:

  • Locast's total revenue in 2020 was $4.519 million...
  • In 2020, Locast's total costs (including depreciation) were $2.436 million...
  • 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).

So even if the Plaintiffs succeed at trial (which this was not, just a judgement on whether there should be a trial), all the Judge has said at this point is that Locast has to lower their fees to less than $3 to be aligned with the law.

2 Likes
Locast vs Antenna
#12

It's a bigger deal than you suggest. The judge found that the donations that Locast requests to avoid uninterrupted service are NOT actually donations, and that Locast is not operating as a non-profit. This cuts the legs under Locast's legal argument for why what they're doing is allowed.

Of course, I imagine that Locast might appeal. But this is not a good finding by the trial judge.

#13

I must have missed that part. Care to quote where it said that?

#14

To add to that part of the non profit status says they can't have a competitive advantage, which Locast clearly has

#15

Read the order (linked to above) starting on page 5.

#16

It does not say they are not operating as a non-profit. It says that as a non-profit to be in compliance with the law they cannot use their income to fund expansion, only the direct costs of operating in their markets.

While the judge alludes that the fees collected are not "donations", he does not say they cannot collect them, only that they cannot be used for anything other than necessary and reasonable costs associated with operating the repeater transmissions.

And also, this was not a trial! This was a response to an argument to dismiss the case from even happening. All the Judge has said is that the Plaintiffs have made a compelling argument that the case should happen and that the defendant (Locast) did not have a good enough argument to not have a trial. He has not ruled whether anything he has written is the law, only that it seems like it may be the law and needs to be further explored.

Locast could probably make this whole thing moot just by changing the word "donations" to the phrase "fees necessary to defray the actual and reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the service" and charging $2.75 in existing markets.

6 Likes
#17

I did. It doesn't say what you said it says.

2 Likes
#18

When I was with xfinity, cable cost $70 per month, but there was an additional $40 in fees which mostly had to do with rebroadcast fees. All that went away when I dropped cable and replaced it with Philo and Locast. It's not equivalent channel by channel but nobody in my house even noticed what I did. If Locast goes away and I have to drag out my antenna, so be it. But I will no longer pay $40 per month to prop up the dying industry which is broadcast TV. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.

5 Likes
#19

I would rather pay the $5.50 than break out my TiVo. The energy saved pays that cost in the summer here in Florida!

#20

Yeah, I am hoping that Locast prevails. But if they don't, I'm not going back to paying their rebroadcast fees for their lack luster content. Besides, I kinda miss the tinfoil covered rabbit ears.

#21

either that, or keep it at $5 but improve the service (think 60fps, which is something they desperately need)...hell, they could even just do 60fps for the main channels only, and it would be a huge improvement.

#22

IANAL but that seems like a bad decision to me. Lots of non-profits expand their mission over time.

#23

you're missing the other part: he granted summary judgement for the networks at the same time, saying locast cannot use the non-profit exemption as a defense. in other words, they now have no defense for retransmitting the signals.

it's all BS, of course. when the law was written in 1976, congress never could have imagined the internet existing in the manner it does today...so of course they didn't write expansion into the law. there was never a thought at that time that a single non-profit could cover the entire country the way locast is trying to do.

1 Like
#24

It has nothing to do with being a non-profit. They could still expand, they could even take on new roles like starting a nursing home if they wanted; they just cannot use the fees they collect in their current operating markets to do so. They'd have to collect money to start in those markets and other endeavors another way.

The law in question here is the one about retransmission of OTA signals and what narrow exceptions are made to do so without reimbursing the broadcasters first. In order to do that, a non-profit must not make excess dollars through their fees, which Locast admits they do have for the express purpose of expansion. Lowering their fees or raising their costs (as @crackers8199 suggests by using more bandwidth and more expensive equipment) are the only options to align to the law, according to this judgment.

#25

I always thought Locast felt more like a subscription service than a non profit. In order to avoid interruptions you had to subscribe.

2 Likes