Canadian satellite

[Keith Brannen]

I read it and found no meaningful references to reverse grey-market activities. What part of Canadian rules regarding reception of encrypted US DTH programming applies to the converse?
Perhaps the CRTC may try to insert themselves into a situation where the end-user is not telling the truth but I question their jurisdictional ability to prosecute non-Canadians who are paying for the service. They can certainly notify the carrier of the deception but I suspect that may be the limit of their "power".

As noted in the House of Commons Committee report on "reverse grey market", both the committee and Bell-Expressvu were active and determined to stop reverse grey market, as grey market is illegal in both countries (copyright and licensing) and, naturally, each country is responsible for prosecuting grey market violators (why would you think otherwise?). The CRTC certainly could step in at any time if a DTH satellite company actively pursued subscriptions in the other country in violation of these laws. Any CRTC warnings ignored by the DTH satellite company could very easily be remedied by simply removing their license. I suspect the FCC could do the same (whether either would take that drastic step or not, is another story, but I would suspect if flagrant enough, pressure from the opposing country, as well as from its own government, copyright holders, etc., could result in such a drastic step, if warranted).

 

[harshness]

You appear to be coming around to my position that the regulators aren't really party to this (other than setting the respective policies).

The beefs are between the end customers and the carriers (violation of the ToS) and the carriers and the content providers (violation of carriage contracts) when there isn't a demonstration of signal theft or equipment import violation of Canadian Law.

I don't think you'll find that the treatment on the US side is much like the treatment on the Canadian side in terms of what is prohibited by law or regulation as the US doesn't have the protectionist policies that the CRTC has established.

In researching my responses, I saw a couple of articles that question whether the CRTC may be waffling on the producer protection idea given that they haven't placed similar restrictions on streaming carriers thereby disadvantaging the satellite carriers.

 

[Keith Brannen]

You appear to be coming around to my position that the regulators aren't really party to this (other than setting the respective policies).

Not really, the regulators have never been stand-alone. For example, the CRTC license DTH companies which have to conform to not only CRTC rules but to other legislative acts (ex. above Radiocommunications Act and Industry Canada rules and regulations, etc). A violation in other legislative acts regarding broadcasting could result in a license pulled by the CRTC. It is, and always has been, interconnected.

The beefs are between the end customers and the carriers (violation of the ToS) and the carriers and the content providers (violation of carriage contracts) when there isn't a demonstration of signal theft or equipment import violation of Canadian Law.

No, as I have shown, it is a violation of the Radiocommunications Act Section 9 (1)(c) as well as any ToS or copyright laws that may apply.

I don't think you'll find that the treatment on the US side is much like the treatment on the Canadian side in terms of what is prohibited by law or regulation as the US doesn't have the protectionist policies that the CRTC has established.

LOL! You also have some protectionist rules in the US as well, though they may be different. For example, none of your DTH satellite companies carry any Canadian channels (though whether that is by design of those companies or by our channels I am not aware which it is) while our protectionist rules do allow many US channels on our DTH satellites, for example, at least one set of US stations (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, and PBS) with an option package for a opposite coast package, plus all your major news channels, plus speciality channels such as AMC, TCM, etc. (only time they have different schedules would basically be the odd movie that the provider can't show in Canada due to copyright holdings), etc.

Plus, at least in Canada I can watch local channels from across Canada and am not restricted to my locals only!

 

[N5XZS]

Kinda ironic strange back in the cold wars day that poor Soviet citizens are not allowed to watch or listen overseas country's radio TV broadcast bands whether be terrestrial or satellite transmissions.

And now we American and Canadians can't watch each other programs in this day ages.

While western European are much more open in FTA satellites than here in western hemisphere.

They should be proud of it and unnecessary copyright censorship in European environment.

We should be doing the same thing in NA too!

 

[harshness]

No, as I have shown, it is a violation of the Radiocommunications Act Section 9 (1)(c) as well as any ToS or copyright laws that may apply.

I must have missed the part where the Radiocommunications Act applies to US citizens. Could you highlight it?

LOL! You also have some protectionist rules in the US as well, though they may be different. For example, none of your DTH satellite companies carry any Canadian channels (though whether that is by design of those companies or by our channels I am not aware which it is) while our protectionist rules do allow many US channels on our DTH satellites, for example, at least one set of US stations (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, and PBS) with an option package for a opposite coast package, plus all your major news channels, plus speciality channels such as AMC, TCM, etc. (only time they have different schedules would basically be the odd movie that the provider can't show in Canada due to copyright holdings), etc.

I don't know of any laws or government policies other than International copyright that the US has that restrict or prohibit TV programs (scrambled or not) from Canada or other countries. Any programming we don't get to see is because the content provider's don't have contracts with the carriers. I imagine that entire channels imported from another country would involve necessarily involve some content that was licensed otherwise in the US and that's an issue for the carriers and their content provider contracts -- not the FCC.

There are some odd things going on as streaming is trying to compete for subscribers though. For example, the current season of Star Trek: Discovery (Season 3) is only available via CBS All Access Internet streaming by contract while it is available via CTV Sci-Fi Canada. Blacking that out for US customers probably wouldn't be something US viewers would accept. The US carriers aren't offered BBC directly so we're saddled with BBC America instead. This isn't because conventional BBC programming is prohibited by law or government policy.

In the US time zones other than the East Coast and Central time zones, we aren't allowed opposite-coast broadcast network television retransmission via DTH satellite. There has recently been an expiration of those regulations so changes may be coming. If you lived on the West Coast, you may have been offered West Coast or later programming but not that from any earlier time zone.

Plus, at least in Canada I can watch local channels from across Canada and am not restricted to my locals only!

US locals aren't encrypted and they aren't being delivered to you by DTH satellite so that's a hollow argument in this context. We can get East and West feeds of entertainment programming from satellite and sometimes cable but those typically aren't time sensitive.

Because our funding model for broadcast television doesn't include government monies, the individual TV markets are protected. In any case, the programming is much the same except for the locally produced content.

 

[Keith Brannen]

I must have missed the part where the Radiocommunications Act applies to US citizens. Could you highlight it?

Your statement was: "The beefs are between the end customers and the carriers (violation of the ToS) and the carriers and the content providers (violation of carriage contracts) when there isn't a demonstration of signal theft or equipment import violation of Canadian Law."

Canadian Law applies to Canadians, including the Radiocommunications Act, which is what your statement refers to, Canadian Law, and my reply was about. Unless, of course, you are trying to imply that there is an equivalent American law against importation of Canadian equipment. If so, please quote the American law you are referring to, which you should have then written the above statement as "equipment import violation of American Law", not Canadian Law.

I don't know of any laws or government policies other than International copyright that the US has that restrict or prohibit TV programs (scrambled or not) from Canada or other countries. Any programming we don't get to see is because the content provider's don't have contracts with the carriers. I imagine that entire channels imported from another country would involve necessarily involve some content that was licensed otherwise in the US and that's an issue for the carriers and their content provider contracts -- not the FCC.

As was stated: "Under current U.S. FCC licencing, no Canadian satellite signal provider is permitted to broadcast signals to the United States." Those would be the scrambled channels from Canada that would be restricted or prohibited. Individual programming, both in Canada and the US , would be as you state, be subject to copyrights and carrier agreements and contracts.

There are some odd things going on as streaming is trying to compete for subscribers though. For example, the current season of Star Trek: Discovery (Season 3) is only available via CBS All Access Internet streaming by contract while it is available via CTV Sci-Fi Canada. Blacking that out for US customers probably wouldn't be something US viewers would accept. The US carriers aren't offered BBC directly so we're saddled with BBC America instead. This isn't because conventional BBC programming is prohibited by law or government policy.

CBS All Access sold the rights to broadcast Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard to CTV Sci-Fi channel for broadcast in Canada only (which I am grateful they did!). If CTV Sci-Fi channel was on a US DTH carrier, it would violate US copyright law for it to be shown, so it would be blacked out or replaced with other programming (or CBS All Access would not have sold them the rights in the first place, knowing it would be on a US DTH carrier and violate there exclusive US copyright if it was not blacked out). That is no different than in Canada.

In the US time zones other than the East Coast and Central time zones, we aren't allowed opposite-coast broadcast network television retransmission via DTH satellite. There has recently been an expiration of those regulations so changes may be coming. If you lived on the West Coast, you may have been offered West Coast or later programming but not that from any earlier time zone.

US locals aren't encrypted and they aren't being delivered to you by DTH satellite so that's a hollow argument in this context. We can get East and West feeds of entertainment programming from satellite and sometimes cable but those typically aren't time sensitive.

What? US locals are encrypted on DTH satellites, and you only can get your locals on that satellite service, you can't, as we can, view through our satellite services local channels from across the country. Hence, we don't have the numerous blackouts of local channels due to contract disputes that you get with your satellite services. That, if I remember correctly, is due to FCC regulations, so a protectionist move.

Because our funding model for broadcast television doesn't include government monies, the individual TV markets are protected. In any case, the programming is much the same except for the locally produced content.

Only the CBC receives some of it budget from the government (as do some provincial educational channels, but they do not have commercials, which is similar to the funding of your PBS stations), but the other major and independent broadcasters are no different in funding than your stations.

 

[harshness]

Canadian Law applies to Canadians, including the Radiocommunications Act, which is what your statement refers to, Canadian Law, and my reply was about. Unless, of course, you are trying to imply that there is an equivalent American law against importation of Canadian equipment. If so, please quote the American law you are referring to, which you should have then written the above statement as "equipment import violation of American Law", not Canadian Law.

You seem to have fallen off the train here. The discussion was about reception of Shaw signals in the US and not about receiving DIRECTV, DISH or Orby in Canada.

As was stated: "Under current U.S. FCC licencing, no Canadian satellite signal provider is permitted to broadcast signals to the United States." Those would be the scrambled channels from Canada that would be restricted or prohibited.

That statement is false. Canadian signals (both satellite and broadcast) find their way into the US and vice versa and that's something that can't reasonably be prevented. Logic dictates that an argument based on a false premise isn't supported by that premise.

What? US locals are encrypted on DTH satellites, and you only can get your locals on that satellite service, you can't, as we can, view through our satellite services local channels from across the country.

I was filling in details, not arguing otherwise.

Hence, we don't have the numerous blackouts of local channels due to contract disputes that you get with your satellite services.

That's not a logical conclusion. The blackouts are a result of the fact that the stations are allowed to charge for satellite and cable carriage and when they don't get what they want, there is no carriage.

That, if I remember correctly, is due to FCC regulations, so a protectionist move.

It is a taking your copyrighted marbles and going home move, not a government regulation.

Only the CBC receives some of it budget from the government (as do some provincial educational channels, but they do not have commercials, which is similar to the funding of your PBS stations), but the other major and independent broadcasters are no different in funding than your stations.

If I recall correctly, Canada doesn't have nearly as many broadcast stations as in the US. In the US we have 210 "markets" that are typically served by a number of stations that mostly cover each of the available broadcast networks. That means the money gets split many ways.

Where Canada has fifteen or so networks and stations that broadcast only one channel, the US has dozens of networks with stations carrying up to 16 channels (in absolutely intolerable quality). This means that the advertising revenues get spread incredibly thin when you multiply by the 210 market component. What happened as a result was that larger station groups have been buying out smaller station groups and forming large conglomerates. FCC rules were put in place to prevent this but the big players figured out how to game the system somewhat and that causes multiple TV markets to be denied carriage when there's a dispute.

 

[Keith Brannen]

You seem to have fallen off the train here. The discussion was about reception of Shaw signals in the US and not about receiving DIRECTV, DISH or Orby in Canada.

You're the one who keeps changing tracks, by continuing to mention Canadian Law. How many times do I have to state Canadian law is for Canadians, before you stop bringing it up?

That statement is false. Canadian signals (both satellite and broadcast) find their way into the US and vice versa and that's something that can't reasonably be prevented. Logic dictates that an argument based on a false premise isn't supported by that premise.

The statement is not false, and it doesn't matter whether the signal can be received or not (and we are only talking satellite here, don't forget, not cable, not over the air, not free to air), it is encrypted, and the service is not licensed in the US by the FCC, therefore the reverse grey market is illegal in the US as well. That is the only logic involved.

No point in answering your other statements, as, while it is an interesting discussion at times, it is side-tracking the main point.

 

[harshness]

You're the one who keeps changing tracks, by continuing to mention Canadian Law. How many times do I have to state Canadian law is for Canadians, before you stop bringing it up?

It is you that has cited Canadian sources and tried to apply Canadian laws or regulations.

Under current U.S. FCC licencing, no Canadian satellite signal provider is permitted to broadcast signals to the United States.

The statement is not false, and it doesn't matter whether the signal can be received or not (and we are only talking satellite here, don't forget, not cable, not over the air, not free to air), it is encrypted, and the service is not licensed in the US by the FCC, therefore the reverse grey market is illegal in the US as well

The sentence I italicized above is false. Canadian carriers (and broadcasters as well) are indeed licensed to shine their signals on US soil as necessary just as the US carriers (and broadcasters) may overlap onto Canadian soil. This is by agreement between the countries as you can't prevent DIRECTV, DISH and Orby signals from hitting some or all of Canada nor can you prevent Shaw and Bell signals from hitting parts of the US. North American airspace is shared in terms of satellite signals coming from the Clarke Belt so licensing must necessarily go through both governing bodies.

Fibbing to your satellite provider isn't against the law and that's the basis behind all of the "reverse grey market" activity. A grey market subscription places your satellite provider in jeopardy of violating their contracts with content providers and as such, it is the provider's problem and their only recourse is to cut you off.

 

[Keith Brannen]

It is you that has cited Canadian sources and tried to apply Canadian laws or regulations.

Wrong, you started it by say on post #15 "Absent a citation (moderators aren't always omnicient), I'm dubious." in reply to:

I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the rules and regulations of the CRTC. But my source of information is at the following link:

Shaw Direct In Areas South of Canada (Mexico, US, etc)...

Both his post, and the link, talk about the CRTC and Canadian law. My reply to you was giving you the citations about the CRTC and Canadian law that you were "dubious" about. Then it spiralled from there. Point it out to me where I ever said Canadian laws applied to the US. You may have misread or assumed it, but I never did, and, in fact, pointed out FCC regulations that do apply. Plus, I have constantly said the Canadian law applies to Canadians.

Full statement, from a House Of Commons Committee (source cited above in post #19) that you say is false:
See the section entitled: E. The "Reverse Grey Market"
To quote a section of it (and note the FCC regulation):
"However, just as it is illegal to receive unlicenced American satellite signals at Canadian addresses, in the United States it is illegal to receive unlicenced Canadian satellite signals at American addresses. Under current U.S. FCC licencing, no Canadian satellite signal provider is permitted to broadcast signals to the United States. Nevertheless, the desire to receive Canadian broadcasting in the United States has given rise to the so-called "reverse grey market." This works in much the same way as does the Canadian grey market in U.S. satellite signals."

The sentence I italicized above is false. Canadian carriers (and broadcasters as well) are indeed licensed to shine their signals on US soil as necessary just as the US carriers (and broadcasters) may overlap onto Canadian soil. This is by agreement between the countries as you can't prevent DIRECTV, DISH and Orby signals from hitting some or all of Canada nor can you prevent Shaw and Bell signals from hitting parts of the US. North American airspace is shared in terms of satellite signals coming from the Clarke Belt so licensing must necessarily go through both governing bodies.

So you are saying that the House Of Common Committee is lying? Interesting. First off, it is true that no Canadian satellite signal provider is licensed by the FCC, (and we are talking about Shaw and Bell, no other broadcaster) who are sending encrypted signals, so they do not have access to US markets in any sense (hence no subscriptions allowed). Just like in Canada, Directv, Dish, and Orby are not allowed subscriptions. Overlapping of signals in each others territory does not matter at all, as they are encrypted channels that require a subscription to view. It is as simple as that.

 

[harshness]

So you are saying that the House Of Common Committee is lying?

With respect to the referenced sentence, yes.

The fact that the grey market exists is unassailable proof that the downlink signals span international borders. No amount of government legislation or regulation can change the physics of geosynchronous satellite (or OTA TV and radio) broadcast.

They grey market is built entirely on subscribers who are misrepresenting where they are receiving the signals. They're all paying for the service (by the definition of grey market) so it isn't a matter of theft.

That the carriers haven't disabled the receiving equipment leads to the conclusion that they are implicitly "authorizing" the grey market subscribers to receive the encrypted signals.

 

[Keith Brannen]

With respect to the referenced sentence, yes.

LOL! Prove it. Go on, post the FCC license for Shaw and Bell to broadcast their signals to the US, which is the only way to allow for market access (which is the only way for subscriptions to be legal). I am getting tired of repeating myself on this, and the fact the signal overlap into other territories does not make any difference whatsoever if you are not licensed by the respective countries regulator which would allow for market access.

 

[harshness]

Prove it.

The fact that the grey market subscribers are getting service pretty much disproves any and all arguments to the contrary.

As I see it, the onus is on you to prove that grey market activity is illegal from the standpoint of the subscriber.

 

[Keith Brannen]

I knew you couldn't prove otherwise. My statement in posts #30 and #32 stands unrefuted. End of discussion.

 

[harshness]

I knew you couldn't prove otherwise. My statement in posts #30 and #32 stands unrefuted. End of discussion.

Declaring your position unrefuted and the topic closed doesn't change the fact that the Canadian DTH signals are hitting the US and subscribers located in the US are successfully receiving and decoding those signals.

Because the Clarke Belt is a shared resource that cannot reasonably be physically partitioned by governmental borders and in accordance with the United Nations Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the International Telecommunications Union is the entity that determines what goes on with geo satellite slots. The countries regulate what goes on with those slots as they are used within their borders. What happens outside their borders isn't their problem unless it interferes with someone else's allocation.

 

[pacificrim]

Declaring your position unrefuted and the topic closed doesn't change the fact that the Canadian DTH signals are hitting the US and subscribers located in the US are successfully receiving and decoding those signals.

Because the Clarke Belt is a shared resource that cannot reasonably be physically partitioned by governmental borders and in accordance with the United Nations Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the International Telecommunications Union is the entity that determines what goes on with geo satellite slots. The countries regulate what goes on with those slots as they are used within their borders. What happens outside their borders isn't their problem unless it interferes with someone else's allocation.

Wasn't the original question about service in Oklahoma? The answer is yes, you can still get all of the BC channels and lots more off of 111w. Nothing from 107. The end.

Nothing to do with NAFTA, the CRTC, the Clarke Belt or anything else answers this question. Keep the car in the lane.

 

[pacificrim]

Wasn't the original question about service in Oklahoma? The answer is yes, you can still get all of the BC channels and lots more off of 111w. Nothing from 107. The end.

Nothing to do with NAFTA, the CRTC, the Clarke Belt or anything else answers this question. Keep the car in the lane.

Here's a link to the ShawDirect / Shaw Broadcast offerings on F2

https://shawbroadcast.com/Documents/2020/oct/5/F2%20Ku-Band%20Channel%20Chart%20(EOL%20of%20F1R).xlsx

 

[ArmyBrat]

I read it and found no meaningful references to reverse grey-market activities. What part of Canadian rules regarding reception of encrypted US DTH programming applies to the converse?
Perhaps the CRTC may try to insert themselves into a situation where the end-user is not telling the truth but I question their jurisdictional ability to prosecute non-Canadians who are paying for the service. They can certainly notify the carrier of the deception but I suspect that may be the limit of their "power".

I'd need to see some evidence that the FCC has any control over reception of encrypted programming outside the US as opposed to an oblique suggestion that they're the US mirror of the CRTC. From the standpoint of where the signals can go, it should be noted that satellite licenses for North America are reciprocal since you can't hit one country without touching on the other.

In the US, illegal decryption is a violation of the DMCA and that's US law rather than FCC policy. Any legal action is typically brought by the copyright owner.

There's just too much hand-waving going on with these explanations and I expect that this is probably intentional.

ArmyBrat waves to harshness

I'm not sure about oblique suggestions but I will suggest that the FCC is not the US mirror of the CRTC.
In actual fact, the FCC and IC (Industry Canada) are mirrors of each other.
They are the ones that control the Radio Frequency Spectrum in their respective countries including the issuing of licenses to use those frequencies.

The CRTC is uniquely Canadian and initially was put in place to "protect Canadian culture". And in part, that will explain why the CRTC is under the Federal Minister of Canadian Heritage. It's a public regulatory agency and just one of many that falls under the Heritage Minister. Their job is to drain as much joy from our lives as possible in a futile attempt to protect "Canadian Heritage" from being bulldozed by other countries. (And let's face it, there was only ONE country they really stopped us from buying subscriptions from.)

Industry Canada falls under the Minister of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development. (Which is the full name of Industry Canada.) It's a Department of the federal government. Just as the FCC is in the US.

As for the FCC getting into jurisdictional issues about decrypting Canadian signals.... they don't have to. And it's not something they care about. What they do care about is whether or not the equipment you use to receive those signals, is "FCC Approved". The reverse holds true for Canada. Industry Canada isn't worried about your subscription, they're worried about whether the equipment is "IC Approved".

There are very valid public safety reasons for this concern by both countries. And with the high frequency switching power supplies in so many things now, it's surprising how extensive the list is for equipment that requires IC or FCC approval.

Hair dryers, sewing machines, electric drills, doorbell transformers, light switches, smartphone chargers, power supplies, computing devices, washing machines, clothes dryers, fluorescent lights, LED lights, or garage door openers and more, just to get the list started.

 

[ArmyBrat]

Not to get too "techie" about it but I believe you'll find the reason southern coverage is disappearing as Shaw moves channels over to new satellites, is all about power budgeting. IE: Making the antenna's on the satellites more "directional". The more directional an antenna is, the more "gain" the antenna itself produces. The antenna gain increases as the ground "footprint" decreases. The more antenna gain you have, the less transmitter power you need to get the same amount of signal on the ground, within the directional pattern of the antenna.

And/or they could keep transmitter power the same and add extra bandwidth to the satellite. (More channels)

Point being this is all about technological improvements for Shaw service in Canada. Not some dastardly plan to deprive Americans and/or Canadian Ex-Pats from watching Canadian TV. At best, the reduced US footprint to the south is a purely coincidental side effect of those improvements.

 

[N5XZS]

They should have taken thought and consideration for Canadian snow bird goes south tto get warm and Americans likes to see what's going on in Canada and learn and enjoy their culture.

They should had expanded the coverage by increasing the TX power, so instead they choose to shrink the coverage by resulting in backfiring and causing unhappiness for the folks just wanted get decent Canadian TV programmings.