Community Discussions

Connect with other Roku users to learn more about streaming, cord-cutting, finding your favorite content, or talk about the latest entertainment happenings. It's all on Roku!
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
boogernose
Level 10

You may NOT need an Antenna

There is a Roku Channel/app called locast or locast.org which in my area streams more local channels then I can pick up with my Mohu leaf. I just started with it.Its Donation only or free. Give it a go especially if you have signal problems.

https://www.locast.org/

0 Kudos
24 Replies
trekkeriii
Level 10

Re: You may NOT need an Antenna

They are getting sued by Broadcasters much like Aereo was, likely will not be around long. Also, it's not free. They "Encourage" donations by annoying you with it timing out after so long.

http://trekkeriii.com/Roku_PHP_list.php
Router - ASUS RT-AC68U
ISP - TWC - 50 Mbps/5 Mbps
Net+ Cert
0 Kudos
fluke
Level 10

Re: You may NOT need an Antenna

Locast is getting sued by the broadcasters similar to how Aereo was.

They also seem slightly aggressive in making people aware that donations are encouraged.  But in that respect they seem similar to the PBS model that has funding drives between programming.  So, I believe technically they are just as free as PBS is.

As far as not being around much longer, I don't think that is true.  I think this case will drag on for a while.  It also has key differences from Aereo.  In the case of Aereo, the company was making no attempt to be a non-profit and was trying to leverage guidelines of "fair-use" of copyright.  While a fair-use defense has worked for companies like Sony in the BetaMAX case, it really isn't well defined in law.  This makes it hard to say for sure what the limits are.  For Aereo they had the strange concept each customer was leasing their own dime size antenna.  But they didn't seem to have their own ATSC tuner per customer.  There was still shared resources so the idea they were completely different that cable didn't seem to hold up very well.

Locast is operating under USA Federal law Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 111 (a) (5) which isn't a vague fair-use concept but an explicit exemption to having to seek re-broadcast rights.  The broadcasters seem focused on one specific part of that law which is "without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage."  They seem to believe that AT&T's donation and promotion of Locast indicate they are acting as an agent of AT&T.  It is my belief they established a mission statement for Locast that never was intended to benefit AT&T or to get promotion from AT&T.  I also don't think they deviated from their established mission statement because of the donation.  AT&T customers never got any special treatment.

If Locast does win the court case against the broadcasters, I think that might just be phase one of Locast's need to defend themselves in court.  The non-profit that runs Locast is not called Locast, it is called "Sports Fans Coalition NY, Inc."   Both the NFL and MLB love to license broadcast access to their games based on region.  The degree to which Locast is able to enforce regions by tracking VPN providers and blocking them may become a later court case.  If they do take their own shot at Locast in court, it might be interesting to see how it plays out.

However, for the current lawsuit, the counterclaims was filed on September 26 (Case No. 19-cv-7136-LLS).  It seems from those counterclaims that Locast is up for a legal fight.  The filing was 74 pages in length and one hell of an epic read.  This might be a case that the broadcasters end up deciding will set a bad legal precedent if it doesn't go their way in court and not want to risk proceeding.  Instead, the broadcasters may just settle to make their own lawsuit go away while trying to get Locast to agree to certain settlement conditions.  David Goodfriend just doesn't not seem like that type of guy that would have interacted with AT&T or any other cable company in a way that would provide proof they exceeded the bounds of being a non-profit secondary transmission service.

boogernose
Level 10

Re: You may NOT need an Antenna

OH SO WHAT!!

They need our support I'm sending it to them.

their existence and placement  makes Roku extremely viable In my view.

Did I mention extremely viable? I think cord cutters should rally behind their being., period.

If they have a fight lets back them.

They make a world of difference.

So,you know, some of you developers need to get a grip.

 

Incidentally there was a CONGRESSIONAL ACT back when that stated Broadcasting Channels had to    make   themselves available back when Digital started. You can sulk or get on the train.

0 Kudos
atc98092
Level 16

Re: You may NOT need an Antenna

I just checked their web site, and it seems their locations served is still rather sparse. They have some major cities, but are still lacking many more. I've installed the channel, but have to wait until they add Seattle before I will bother signing up. 

Dan
Roku Stick (3600), Ultra (4640), Premiere (3920), Insignia 720p Roku TV, Sharp 4K Roku TV, Nvidia Shield, Windows 10 Pro x64 running Serviio and Plex on a wired Gigabit network.
boogernose
Level 10

Re: You may NOT need an Antenna

Yeah I'm lucky here in SF. I believe they are a non-profit. Think I read that somewhere which maybe is why this Aereo got sued.

0 Kudos
37mediagroup
Level 9

Re: You may NOT need an Antenna

This may end up being one of those 'slow' lawsuits, where the broadcasters realize they are onto something & await Locast coming up with the solutions & streaming abilities & infrastructure before coming up with a shared partnership of sorts. Kinda like Napster had the owner been willing to work with the record companies better, or the early days of Netflix where studios leasing movie titles to Netflix streaming for pennies on the dollar while Netflix built up a behemoth.

It's in Broadcast channels better interest to elevate themselves in a way as to not be mixed in with the pile of streaming channels, and this may be a good way for them to do so. Keep themselves isolated a bit, and possibly share in revenue. (although even moreso keep advertising rates & viewership high)

boogernose
Level 10

Re: You may NOT need an Antenna

Not long ago say a week or so.....

there were two more replies on this string. One of them was mine.

Where did they go?????

They were here for a few days and poof!

If we are being censored for personal or commercial reasons...

Please do tell us?

0 Kudos
boogernose
Level 10

Re: You may NOT need an Antenna

 

again, SO WHAT!!!!

Locast provides a very viable solution and reason for Roku's existence.

I dont care if theyre being sued. If they need support Ive already sent it to them. With them I dont need an antenna. Nor do I need to play with it in futility.

Why would you remove such a post Mr Tanner?

I've been using them for weeks and they haven't bothered me for donations.

I would expect that they need some help. So I sent them a big 5 bucks.

0 Kudos
Community Manager
Community Manager

Re: You may NOT need an Antenna

Content may get flagged at times for various reasons and removed for review. I've gone ahead and resolved this issue. 

 

Thanks,

Tanner

Tanner D.
Roku Community Manager