How do i order Directv from canada

[keleko74]

What I find striking is that there are people who are so willing to accept this form of censorship from the Canadian government. Thats what it is, pure and simple. They are attempting to limit the forms of information that people can obtain. Witness what is happening in Pakistan as people try and obtain outside news. The residents and citizens of Canada should not just stand by and let their freedoms be restricted.

Not sure where your idea of censorship is coming from. Canadians are not stopped from Viewing American programming, in fact, they are still bombarded by it and is fully provided by their own Canadian cable and sat providers. They still get NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN, etc etc etc.

Where the issue comes into play is that they want to protect the Canadian Content, Businesses and Culture. What good would it be for Canadians to subscribe to D* or E* to watch TV but not see any commercials or advertisments from Companies or services in their own country. Not to mention last time I looked D* and E* do not provide any Canadian programming, for example you do not find CBC, CTV, TSN etc on those providers.

How would you like it if you had a TV in America but could not watch any American Programming such as ESPN, NBC, FOX, CBS, ABC etc and also had to watch Foreign commercials all the time for companies or services that do not exist in America?

I think you really need to look up the definition of Censorship before accusing another country of it.

 

[dishrich]

How would you like it if you had a TV in America but could not watch any American Programming such as ESPN, NBC, FOX, CBS, ABC etc

It would be a WELCOME change!

and also had to watch Foreign commercials all the time for companies or services that do not exist in America?

It wouldn't make ANY difference whatsoever to me, since I DVR EVERYTHING & skip ALL the commercials, so whether they come from American, Asia, or Buckswanneland won't change a thing.

 

[GregLee]

I amazed at how many people have no sense of right and wrong here. Did your mommies drop you on the head as children one too many times?

Per the letter of the law as it pertains to satellite service, it is illegal to falsely misrepresent your "SERVICE ADDRESS" as being one place when it is in fact at another location.

The letter of what law? I think you're making this up. I hope you understand that laws binding DirecTV don't necessarily bind its customers, and policies of DirecTV are not laws. FCC policies may or may not have the force of law.

 

[aztracker]

Bluegrass, the fraud and piracy statement from Directv seems geared towards those that are causing a loss in revenue to Directv. The Canadian is technically not causing a loss to Directv's bottom line because he is actually paying for the service.

Ultimately if someone was ever caught, more than likely the punishment handed down from the judge would fit the crime and be fairly minimal. Now if he was illegally receiving Directv, as in he had a rigged smartcard, the penalties would definitely be severe because he is outright stealing from Directv.

 

[BluegrassGuy1976]

The letter of what law? I think you're making this up. I hope you understand that laws binding DirecTV don't necessarily bind its customers, and policies of DirecTV are not laws. FCC policies may or may not have the force of law.

If they don't bind customers as well, then why does D* prosecute them when they're caught?

 

[harshness]

The letter of what law?

CRTC policy.

This policy was developed at the behest of the Department of Canadian Heritage and implemented through the CRTC's licensing authority. Part of the licensing also uses a special qualification point system demanding a certain minimum score for Canadian content.

Canadian residents who don't like it need to take up the issue with the CRTC, not the FCC (no involvement whatsoever) or DIRECTV (not licensed to broadcast in Canada).

 

[Tower Guy]

The letter of what law?

18 U.S.C 1343
47 U.S.C. 605

 

[GregLee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
The letter of what law?

18 U.S.C 1343
47 U.S.C. 605

It's good to get a specific answer to a specific question. However, though this is a letter of a law, there's no relevance to the question. "§ 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television" sets a penalty for fraud, but doesn't say that representing your address as being in another country is fraudulent -- not even close. "§ 605. Unauthorized publication or use of communications" concerns publicizing encrypted communications -- nothing at all to do with the present discussion.

Did you think no one would bother looking up your citations?

 

[Tower Guy]

It's good to get a specific answer to a specific question. However, though this is a letter of a law, there's no relevance to the question. "§ 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television" sets a penalty for fraud, but doesn't say that representing your address as being in another country is fraudulent -- not even close. "§ 605. Unauthorized publication or use of communications" concerns publicizing encrypted communications -- nothing at all to do with the present discussion.

Did you think no one would bother looking up your citations?

I'm glad that you looked it up. But you failed to actually read it with your mind engaged.

The first law prohibits transmitting a fraudulent address by electronic means. If you transmit a false address by mail instead, the law doesn't apply. Then mail fraud law is applicable.

The second law states: "No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication."

That makes unauthorized reception illegal. It also makes it illegal to help someone receive unauthorized programming. And yes, it specifically prohibits such action in foreign communication.

 

[harshness]

I'm glad that you looked it up. But you failed to actually read it with your mind engaged.

Have you contemplated whether or not your cited legislation even applies to Canadian residents?

Of course it doesn't (unless Canada has a reciprocal agreement with the U.S. on the issue).

It probably doesn't apply to U.S. residents living in Canada.

 

[Tower Guy]

Have you contemplated whether or not your cited legislation even applies to Canadian residents?

Of course it doesn't (unless Canada has a reciprocal agreement with the U.S. on the issue).

It probably doesn't apply to U.S. residents living in Canada.

The transmission of a false address into the US is illegal even if done so from Canada. While it's unlikely that the FBI would extradite a Canadian for doing so, that doesn't make it legal either.

An American who knowingly helps a Canadian to obtain DirecTV service in Canada has broken the second US law.

Finally, it's well known that Canada has prosecuted Grey market direct to home retailers:
Buyer Beware: Industry Canada Cautions Canadians Against Buying Illegal Satellite Systems

Now, it's your turn to argue that it is actually legal.

 

[harshness]

Now, it's your turn to argue that it is actually legal.

I can't argue that it is legal because it is expressly forbidden by Canadian statute.

Ascription of obscure U.S. codes is a complete waste of time when the Canadian law covers the issue directly and there is no question of jurisdiction.

Trying to argue ethics isn't going to change the thinking of the criminally self-righteous.

 

[GregLee]

I'm glad that you looked it up. But you failed to actually read it with your mind engaged.

The first law prohibits transmitting a fraudulent address by electronic means. If you transmit a false address by mail instead, the law doesn't apply. Then mail fraud law is applicable.

The second law states: "No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication."
...

Well, I looked them up again and re-read them. I don't think you represent the laws correctly. The phrases "fraudulent address" and "false address" do not appear in § 1343. In applying the term "fraudulent" in your interpretation, you presuppose that there would be a fraud, which is the question we were discussing, so you've begged the question.

The purported quotation you give from the second law, § 605, is not there in the text. It does not state what you say it does.

 

[peano]

This is all kind of moot since there is no way to start service with Directv without an SSN which obviously Canadians don't have.

 

[Tower Guy]

Well, I looked them up again and re-read them. I don't think you represent the laws correctly. The phrases "fraudulent address" and "false address" do not appear in § 1343. In applying the term "fraudulent" in your interpretation, you presuppose that there would be a fraud, which is the question we were discussing, so you've begged the question.

The purported quotation you give from the second law, § 605, is not there in the text. It does not state what you say it does.

Your argument is anemic. You are suggesting that it's OK to steal a diamond necklace simply because the words "diamond necklace" don't appear in the laws that forbid stealing. Try that one in court.

Look again: 47 USC § 605 a
47 U.S.C. 605. Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications
The first word begins on the end of the fifth line down.

Engage your brain, not your keyboard.

 

[teevee]

Peano, Just to let you know, yo do not need a SSN to get Directv. I know a lot of Canadians who have Directv who simply refused to give a SSN. Directv can not refuse service as they are not allowed by law to demand a SNN. It is private information and they can do a credit check through your credit card provider. In fact my neighbour just hooked up his service two days ago refuing to give SSN...no problems whatsoever.

 

[GregLee]

Your argument is anemic. You are suggesting that it's OK to steal a diamond necklace simply because the words "diamond necklace" don't appear in the laws that forbid stealing. Try that one in court.

No, I'm saying that you represent the law as saying something about fraudulent addresses and false addresses, but it doesn't say such things. So, you represent it incorrectly. If you think it implies something about false addresses, that would be up to you to demonstrate. I don't see any such implication. I'm also saying that you've begged the question about whether giving a false address is fraudulent. I think it would depend on whether you give it in order to perpetrate a fraud -- it's not fraudulent per se.

You're right that the quotation you gave is accurate. My mistake.

 

[Sori4mvp]

Just do it, I used a NY address while living in NC so I could get the Jet games without having to pay for Sunday Ticket, that is probably worse then what this guy is wanting to do! If you can hook the dish up yourself just use a friends address from the states!!!!

 

[peano]

Peano, Just to let you know, yo do not need a SSN to get Directv. I know a lot of Canadians who have Directv who simply refused to give a SSN. Directv can not refuse service as they are not allowed by law to demand a SNN. It is private information and they can do a credit check through your credit card provider. In fact my neighbour just hooked up his service two days ago refuing to give SSN...no problems whatsoever.

Well, they refused me without it. So did Dish.

 

[Yessssur]

I was looking at another thread on this site about getting Direct TV in Canada and somebody posted a link to this store to buy the equipment:

Can-Am Satellites Online Store

Taken from their website:

Attention Directv Subscribers
[SIZE=-1] On June 26th, 2008, Directv raided our offices with a Court Order in hand that prevents us from assisting our customers to access Directv programming. Directv, with the authority of the Court Order, seized our Directv customer list and have begun terminating accounts. The Court Order prevented us from disclosing these events until 10 days after the fact. Please be advised that we are weighing our legal options and in a week or two we will be able to determine our future with respect to this matter. In the meantime, we invite your comments and suggestions as to how we might best serve your interests. At this time, Dish Network customers are unaffected.

Sincerely,
Richard Rex
Owner, Can-Am Satellites
rrex@smalldish.com
July 6th, 2008[/SIZE]

Apparently it is illegal.