[Boston1945]

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com

I personally am glad , if everyone gets tv for free , who pays for programs and from all the talk on here you got what you paid for which seemed to be a lot of aggravation , call me stupid but at this age and having a few bucks to spend I just want to turn on my tv and watch it without banging a lot of buttons or buying things from flea markets that get closed down by police

Think about this for one second. Thank God you don't live over in Ireland. You must purchase a license to watch TV. Back in 1962 licenses were introduced for TV viewing. When you purchase the TV at the store you will pay right on the spot. The current fee is 160 pounds (us dollars $221.70) That is for one year.
If you have a TV, or equipment capable of receiving a television signal (using an aerial, satellite dish, cable or other means), you must have a TV licence. This applies even if the TV is broken, as it is considered capable of being repaired.

You only need one TV licence per household, regardless of how many TVs you have in your home.

If you are living in an apartment or flat and have a TV, you need your own TV licence. A separate licence is required for each separate flat, apartment or other dwelling in a building.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Please explain. Why shouldn't ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox be able to sell their copyrighted content to Comcast for resale to Comcast customers? Why should the courts get involved?

I think many of you forget about the days of UHF and VHF TV, when content was paid for by...

advertisers.

Now, content is paid for by advertisers AND subscribers. They get paid double for the same content, from two different sources.

If you're watching ABC news, you're watching commercial TV. You pay for the privilege of seeing advertisements, which you might or might not want to see, and which the advertisers are also paying to present to you.

This was the #1 drawback to pay-tv, back in the day when cable first showed up. It was why ad-free TV was such a huge deal, even if you had to pay extra for it.

Now though, it doesn't matter what you watch. If you don't have an antenna and are watching TV shows on stations that you could normally see with an antenna for free, you are paying to watch advertisements.

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

Originally Posted by Jhnidy

Don't complain about my antenna. You have removed my other choice.

In all 6 neighborhoods I’ve lived in here , maybe that’s
Why I’m so happy . FYI I’m also happy with my direct tv and I love my NFL ticket and can’t wait till next week

[BlackhawksFan]

Apparently TiVo hasn't caught up yet at 1230 et USA network just ran a TiVo ad featuring Locast app for your local channels.

[Sparky25]

IMHO Locast is the best free tv service since over the air channels became available and that started before I was born. You got all your local tv channels that you would normally get with a tv antenna if we were closer to Orlando. They do interrupt the show every 15 minutes to ask for a $5 donation.If you send them a donation they use that money to expand their service to new markets where they have not served yet and then they don't ask again and then they don't interrupt you programming anymore with their plea for donations. If you can't afford the $5 and can live with a few more commercials it is free.

Locast is just a great service for those who don't need HBO or other add on services.

If you subscribe to Comcast / Xfinity they charge you an extra $8 a month for local channels that you will not use when you go away for extended periods of time.There should be a law against this type of theft.

The major cable companies with all their money are very happy that they are winning the battle against the small guys and the consumer.

[Doro22]

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com

I personally am glad , if everyone gets tv for free , who pays for programs and from all the talk on here you got what you paid for which seemed to be a lot of aggravation , call me stupid but at this age and having a few bucks to spend I just want to turn on my tv and watch it without banging a lot of buttons or buying things from flea markets that get closed down by police

Yes I totally agree.

[nmanis]

I remember as a kid in the early 1960s at a family picnic a discussion of some news article of this idea called pay television. The idea was laughed off as who would pay for television when we can get it for free by antenna or rabbit ears.

[Mleeja]

Originally Posted by airstreamingypsy

It wasn't a scam. It allowed people who can't get locals, to stream them. They didn't extort money from anyone, you had the choice not to pay the whole big 5.00 a month. Good grief.

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I did. Extort means to:

"obtain (something) by force, threats, or other unfair means."



It's true that Locast didn't force you to pay money, but I think it is unfair to make the viewing so difficult by interrupting the program so often that you could not enjoy it. It was also unfair to call the payments a "donation". Donations should be completely voluntary. But, my main issue with Locast was that they essentially violated the legal copyrights of the broadcasters, which I think is why the court ruled against them.

If you were a subscriber and payed attention, Locast was/is a not-for-profit organization. There was a notice at the bottom of the home page that donations were/are tax deductible.

[Carla B]

Heyitsrick, was able to watch the local news live per your suggestion on NewsOn. Now, do you have any suggestion to bring in the National News at 6:30 pm? Loaded streaming channels ABC, CBS, and NBC "Live.". The only one that comes close to national news is NBC but I don't think they are the regular hosts. At least, Lester Holt wasn't there last night.

Locast sent an email yesterday that the recurring autopay subscriptions have been cancelled.. One less thing for some of us to worry about.

[Ben Franklin]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Please explain. Why shouldn't ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox be able to sell their copyrighted content to Comcast for resale to Comcast customers? Why should the courts get involved?

It was the three major networks that sued Lowcast for copywrite infringement. I believe they sued because Lowcast wasn't paying them a copywrite fee. The presiding judge was appointed by Reagan.