4 ms·
You say if they "drop OTA" but arent the regs all based on "Free to Air" language that an encrypted transmission would not satisfy? This would be like publishin
by gorkish 3y ago
You say if they "drop OTA" but arent the regs all based on "Free to Air" language that an encrypted transmission would not satisfy? This would be like publishing GPG encrypted source code and saying that you are complying with the GPL
- RF_Enthusiast 3y agoIn 47 CFR 73.624(b)[1], the FCC requires that broadcasters have at least one over-the-air video program signal at no direct charge to viewers. That one channel could be their home shopping subchannel, while the main ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX subchannels are encrypted. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.624#p-73.624(b) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-73/section-73.624...
- gorkish 3y agoThanks; yours is the only explanation so far that explains where there is a possible economic motivation for the broadcast stations. I find it a little hard to accept that the original intent was to allow such a thing, but that doesn't mean that subsequent changes and standards updates didn't unintentionally allow a loophole. If this is indeed what is happening, there is a very compelling argument to be made to fix it. My worry is since it doesn't appear that anyone got to the root of the problem before going full-media-circus, that all of the complaints to the FCC are now asking for the wrong solution. Honestly, I personally think it's good to get encryption into the ATSC standard; there are applications that can benefit from that. But if what you suggest is true, the stronger argument is to stop allowing a station to receive retransmission revenue for a station they are not broadcasting free-to-air.