I understand your point. I was just trying to clarify that NOT everyone in the city they are in get GREAT OTA Signal and that is partially why it is important for at least some people in the city they are in. And of course to those that do not want to pay for an Antenna and have it installed if necessary.
Yeah, there are some people in areas prone to interference, or people in apartments that it isn't easy to mount an antenna, or people in a suburban valley where mountains are in the way. If I was in this kind of situation I would surely be using Locast. But this is most of the Locast users, I would think. The vast majority of the population living in the area where Locast is transmitting already could get their own OTA if they wanted.
I like the idea of Locast. I hope it survives. The broadcast signals are transmitted for free in those cities anyway, paid by advertising. Everyone in that area should have a way to get this signal and Locast is trying to get it out to the people in reception-challenged areas.
Unfortunately, the market for this service doesn't seem huge.
This is the same thing the cable companies are doing it. Yet they have to pay the retransmit fee. So I canât see the difference. I am capable to receive all broadcasters in my area 71 channels, but its illegal for me to do what locast is doing without Broadcasters permission. And if they didgive it to me they would require me to pay them for permission to privide that content. How about your wireless routers, Youâre neighbor can receive youâre wireless, should they have the retransmission rights to give access through their network.
Are you a NON-PROFIT? From the LOCAST Link I posted above
Ever since the dawn of TV broadcasting in the mid-20th Century, non-profit organizations have provided âtranslatorâ TV stations as a public service. Where a primary broadcaster cannot reach a receiver with a strong enough signal, the translator amplifies that signal with another transmitter, allowing consumers who otherwise could not get the over-the-air signal to receive important programming, including local news, weather and of course, sports. Locast.org provides the same public service, except instead of an over-the-air signal transmitter, we provide the local broadcast signal via online streaming.
if you dont see the difference maybe you shouldn't talk.
I get the OTA's through antenna, don't care how you get yours. You get yours the way you want the lazy way. With a little investment and work I get all available in my market.
Can get significantly more channels using an antenna in those Locast coverage areas. And much higher quality. This is a good reason to use an antenna, but I don't think Locast is doing anything illegal by re-transmitting these signals within the OTA coverage areas. It is kind of like selling a small FM clock radio to someone who doesn't know how to plug in their Hi-Fi theater system speakers. Or a service that charges a fee to do your annual taxes for people who don't know how to do their own tax return. Not needed, but nice to have, for some people.
EDIT: except for the people who live right on the edge of the coverage area. They sometimes would need extreme measures to get a good signal. Why not extend an internet signal to these people?
Well, the supreme thought Aero was illegal any those people lived in the service area. Locast basis is that they are non profit. Personally I don't think it will fly. If they do win, antenna users are screwed. Networks will just pull their content behind a pay wall and local affiliates will go under.
Aero was also offering "antenna rentals" and DVR storage, and doing so for profit; Locast is operating as a non-profit retransmitter only.
Offering retransmission of broadcasts without paying retransmission fees to the same physical area is actually established law; the only "iffy" part of Locast's model is they are retransmitting via streaming rather than broadcast. Legally, Locast is on solid footing and has a very good chance of winning their suit.
My point was they were offering service in the same area also, which wasn't allowed. If you read the rule they can't have a "Competitive Advantage" which they do now. I don't see them winning.
I am running Channels DVR on a Western Digital MyCloud Pro which tells me:
2019.10.29.0031
Up to date!
When I try to add Locast in Seattle, the Channels DVR app has it as an option, but it tells me:
Locast is not available in Seattle
I did successfully add TVE.
Locast is very significant. We are out in the tulies at the edge of reception, and the most important over the air channels fade out sometimes.
You have to update your DVR by click-and-hold the Check for Update button to get the pre-release version with Seattle support.
Fantastic! You've made my day; no, my week; no, my month; no, my year!
Thanks!
2 Likes
Between TVE and Locast in Seattle, I'm super super happy. Yes, I have OTA. And yes, I have spent serious money and significant time installing large OTA antenna's in my attic, plus a smaller high end one in my bedroom. But even though I'm close to Seattle, I'm on the other side of a fairly large hill and behind some very large trees. I've done my best to maximize my reception, but during the half of the year with leaves on the trees and during windstorms, my channels range from perfect to unwatchable. I get a lot of interference on some of the channels no matter what time of the year (while a few are simply ALWAYS clear). Yes, HDHomeRun is capable of pulling in 47 channels vs Locast's 40, but for some channels, and in some circumstances, Locast is the only way I can reliably get the channel. And these features have made my setup more then I was hoping for when I cut the "cord" a couple years ago.
2 Likes