If Fox "pulls" their "channels off the air", what happens? Nothing.
The only people affected are the tiny percentage who only receive their Fox TV programming using TV antennas.
The vast majority of viewers connect their TVs to cable, satellite, or some form of IPTV like u-verse. The TV signal is sent to the providers by leased lines and then sent to the user. No broadcast was necessary. No broadcast frequencies were used to get the signal to the viewer.
What Fox is talking about is turning off those big 100,000 watt transmitters that almost no one is using anyway. No programming changes, no programming goes away, and the vast majority of US TV viewers are completely unaffected.
Aereo doesn't work without the radio signal broadcasts, and Aereo can't use any other feed to send to their customers because only the radio-frequency broadcast feed falls into the loophole.
The FCC does not have regulation authority over direct-to-viewer providers, thus, since Fox is no longer "broadcasting" over public airwaves Fox no longer requires any FCC license to operate.
If Fox "pulls" their "channels off the air", what happens? Nothing.
The only people affected are the tiny percentage who only receive their Fox TV programming using TV antennas.
The vast majority of viewers connect their TVs to cable, satellite, or some form of IPTV like u-verse. The TV signal is sent to the providers over leased lines and then sent to the user over the providers' cables or satellites. No broadcast was necessary. No broadcast frequencies were used to get the signal to the viewer.
What Fox is talking about is turning off those big 100,000 watt transmitters that almost no one is using anyway. No programming changes, no programming goes away, and the vast majority of US TV viewers are completely unaffected.
Aereo doesn't work without the radio signal broadcasts, and Aereo can't use any other feed to send to their customers because only the radio-frequency broadcast feed falls into the loophole.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ann Onymous.
The author has missed the point
The only people affected are the tiny percentage who only receive their Fox TV programming using TV antennas.
The vast majority of viewers connect their TVs to cable, satellite, or some form of IPTV like u-verse. The TV signal is sent to the providers by leased lines and then sent to the user. No broadcast was necessary. No broadcast frequencies were used to get the signal to the viewer.
What Fox is talking about is turning off those big 100,000 watt transmitters that almost no one is using anyway. No programming changes, no programming goes away, and the vast majority of US TV viewers are completely unaffected.
Aereo doesn't work without the radio signal broadcasts, and Aereo can't use any other feed to send to their customers because only the radio-frequency broadcast feed falls into the loophole.
The FCC does not have regulation authority over direct-to-viewer providers, thus, since Fox is no longer "broadcasting" over public airwaves Fox no longer requires any FCC license to operate.
The author has missed the point
The only people affected are the tiny percentage who only receive their Fox TV programming using TV antennas.
The vast majority of viewers connect their TVs to cable, satellite, or some form of IPTV like u-verse. The TV signal is sent to the providers over leased lines and then sent to the user over the providers' cables or satellites. No broadcast was necessary. No broadcast frequencies were used to get the signal to the viewer.
What Fox is talking about is turning off those big 100,000 watt transmitters that almost no one is using anyway. No programming changes, no programming goes away, and the vast majority of US TV viewers are completely unaffected.
Aereo doesn't work without the radio signal broadcasts, and Aereo can't use any other feed to send to their customers because only the radio-frequency broadcast feed falls into the loophole.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ann Onymous.
Submit a story now.