This is a theoretical question and not about the technical aspects but, if someone were to develope an OTA antenna/receiving system that could pull in a very strong signal from hundreds of miles away (let's say from Detriot to Toronto or even NYC to Toronto) would the Canadian Govt. find some way of outlawing it to protect Canadian business interests? And, If they were to take that approach, could they do so without making all OTA illegal?

It wouldn't be outlawed. For one thing it would be technically impossible to block the signals. Lets assume from Buffalo which is receivable in this Area. The off-air signals are not encrypted and meant to be FREE, so their is really nothing the Government can do about it. If the signals were Encrypted and receivable for a fee, then they could try to Outlaw reception in this country.

so theoretically, technically, can it be done?

depends on the terrain doesn't it?

The government could try to jam the signal but like digitalcable said, it's not encyrypted.

This would be like trying to prevent watching FTA satellite signals.

You've got the curvature of the earth to deal with and there are legal limits on the height of such things.

Remember that the government's issue is with encrypted signals. If HBO were available free-to-air, there would be no issue with you receiving it.

It wouldn't be outlawed. For one thing it would be technically impossible to block the signals. Lets assume from Buffalo which is receivable in this Area. The off-air signals are not encrypted and meant to be FREE, so their is really nothing the Government can do about it. If the signals were Encrypted and receivable for a fee, then they could try to Outlaw reception in this country.

Hmmm...except perhaps making the receiving equipment itself (the antenna in this instance) illegal!

Hmmm...except perhaps making the receiving equipment itself (the antenna in this instance) illegal!
Only there is nothing in the law today that would support this. Free-to-air signals have always been just that.

Ultimately business dictates how we receive a signal. A while back the cable system I was using had problems with some of the Buffalo VHF signals. They were compromised by "lake effect" which manifested itself in multipath (ghosting) to the degree that golf flags and goal posts were presented in multiples on your screen never mind "double players". I looked into the matter and discussed it with someone rather high up in the CRTC (civi-mandarin level not political) and was informed that the cable companies were obliged to receive the signal from the source in the exact same way that the end user was able to. In other words a VHF signal from a Buffalo station HAD to be picked up by a VHF antenna by the cable co.
IF the cable company were to submit proof that the signal was impared beyond their control, as the Buffalo stations were, they could apply for and would receive permission to pick up the same network feeds via CANCOM. In this case it would have been the Detroit network stations. Problem? Although the signal impairment did meet the required criteria to allow the substitution, advertising from the Buffalo area by Toronto interests would have been cut out. So, viewer be damned we got the impaired signal 'cause we're (the viewer) "low man on the Totem Pole" so to speak.
I don't know if things have changed as of the present.

For one thing it would be technically impossible to block the signals.

You obviously don't live in southwestern Ontario. The CRTC has been blocking OTA US signals for years by putting Canadian network repeaters and local stations on co-channels and identical channels.

What your saying about Southwestern Ontario may be technically true to the effect, but they are not doing this deliberately for the reason you are suggesting. All OTA transmitters close to the U.S border require agreements between Canada and the U.S. especially with regards to power levels so that a Canadian signal will not interfere with an American signal and vice versa. Your're probably thinking of the situation with WUAB Cleveland being affected by the Ch-42 repeater of CKCO. That is probably occurring because you are too close to that transmitter . When i was living in Downtown Toronto years back I put up a VHF antenna and CBC on ch-5 was overlapping onto Ch-4 affecting my reception of WIVB, but when I moved out to the country, actually farther away from the city, WIVB is no longer impaired off-air by CBC on ch-5.

Kohrn, that's not to say that Rogers can't stick a VHF antenna 10 feet away from the transmitter in Buffalo, then digitise it and send it to Toronto via fiber.

... Your're probably thinking of the situation with WUAB Cleveland being affected by the Ch-42 repeater of CKCO. ...

Actually, I am referring to dozens of stations that have been driven off cable by CRTC policies and new transmitters. WQLN has been affected as well. WUAB is almost unwatchable most of the time. We lost 3 networks from Cleveland and CBS from Detroit when it switched to FOX. We were left with a third rate Erie CBS affiliate that didn't have stereo sound and has serious picture quality problems due to lake effect and atmospheric interference. Then there are numerous popular US FM stations that were driven from cable by local low power experimental stations and repeaters. The CRTC practically declared war on US style FM stations in one ruling in the early 1980s. The irony is that all the local Canadian FM stations have become just like US FM stations in the past 10 years. Then there was the ruling that allowed BET to be taken off of basic cable and replaced by Rogers owned RobTV. The CRTC has demonstrated a bias against African American culture on several occasions.