Receiving Canadian satellite signal in US -- why illegal?

[jtantum]

I am looking for some help in understanding more precisely why it is illegal to receive Canadian satellite signals in the US.

Is it because the programming content is not licensed for distribution in the US? Or is it an FCC regulation, perhaps because the satellite signal itself is not licensed to be broadcast in a particular bandwidth? Or both? Or something else?!

Thank you.

 

[joshuals]

I don't pretend to know all the details. But it is not illegal (from the standpoint of US law) to receive Canadian satellite signals in the US. What is illegal (from the standpoint of Canadian law), as I understand it, is for a Canadian to receive satellite signals from outside Canada, via one of the two American satellite providers, for example. I believe this came to be in order to prevent the big, bad Americans from out-competing the two Canadian providers, the American providers with their hardware which is arguably better, and with their wider variety of programming. I understand that Canadians can be actually fined or even emprisoned for such an infraction..... I've seen one or two American provider dishes in the area of my summer residence in Quebec, but they're in out-of-the-way places where they are not likely to be spotted.

What is also illegal, sort-of, is for Canadian providers to knowingly provide service to subscribers whose service address is outside Canada, and also for American providers to knowingly provide service to subscribers within Canada. Again, this was to protect what was perceived to be "unfair competion" by cross-border sales. What is inconsistent in all this is that Shaw allows its Canadian customers to take their receivers outside Canada to their "cottage", wherever that may be. Bell, on the other hand, is not so liberal in their policies about moving receivers from their assigned service address.

I suspect it also goes deeper than this. There is this thing called "rights of broadcasters" which seems to state that a broadcaster can dictate who can view their programming. For example, if I try to view Canadian content via the Web on the SRC website, I can do this only if my laptop is in Canada. Once I return to the states, I get a message that states that the program rights are for Canada only and the streaming is blocked :rant:. Not all programming on the website is blocked, however. Documentary-type programming is allowed through, but prime-time content is blocked, as well as all sports. I presume it has to do with the fact that the advertisers of the content are not willing to spend their advertising dollar (which pays for the programming) outside the area where their product is marketed. This concept is not new, however, nor is it limited to satellite signals: in the 1970's, when I lived in the northeast US, I made a nuisance of myself by bugging several cable companies who refused to add Canadian content to their lineup, citing "rules" that they were unwilling to further explain.

I'm sure someone understands it all, but they're probably lawyers and bureaucrats....

I'll be interested to see how other posters view this issue.....

And, just as a P.S., it goes without saying that it is illegal to get any satellite signals without somehow paying for the service.....

 

[billpa]

You must also remember that channels and tv stations pay for programming but they only pay for a certain territory. So TSN might have the rights to a Maple Leafs game across Canada but not the United States. So when TSN signs a contract to be carried on Bell and Shaw it's with the understanding that their signal will not be distributed outside of Canada.
Having said that, an American is not breaking any US law by subscribing to one of the Canadian services simply because there's not law saying they can't. Other issues are certainly raised but as far as I understand it these issues are not legal ones, at least on the part of the TV viewer. Also, as joshuals says all this assumes that the American viewer of a Canadian channel is paying for the service.
On the topic of an American channel, say NBC, losing a US viewer for one of their shows to CITY TV (as an example) I would argue a couple of things:
1. Most, if not all, Americans with Canadian dishes also subscribe to a US-based service, either cable or Dish or Directv, so money is changing hands that keep everyone happy.
2. Unless you're a "Nielson Family" there's no way that your viewing habits will harm the local channel you're not watching.

 

[Frenchophile]

1. Most, if not all, Americans with Canadian dishes also subscribe to a US-based service, either cable or Dish or Directv, so money is changing hands that keep everyone happy.

It's not all. I have Shaw Direct only, no US-based service. we do watch limited a limited amount of programming over the air
having lived in both countries, i think there really is a grass is greener effect. ppl in Canada miss or like US-programming, whereas people here miss or like Canadian programming. My folks are visiting from Michigan, and my dad observed that the news is less sensational and there are no ads during kids shows. He also complained about the limited amount of college sports. i can live with that.

 

[SamCdbs]

Understand that Canada is 1/10th the size of the USA in population. In English speaking terms, its actually 1/12th.

So TV material on a Canadian network is sourced two places. Either it is produced in Canada, which means that the talent, etc were paid based on that market size, or it was sourced from the USA or some other English speaking country, which means that the producer was paid based on that market size, and has the potential to sell the material again in the USA. In either event, everything else being equal, the money changing hands is based on the size of the viewership potential. Further, for an advertizer supported network, advertizers are paying to reach the Canadian market, with Canadian ratings potential.

The third reason is more nationalistic. If Canadian services could legally market to the USA, the potential USA market in terms of viewers and advertizer sales would swamp the Canadians, and a "Canadian" channel would become just another USA channel, since it would try to appeal to the largest potential viewership.

 

[bayguy]

"jtantum" yes one of your guesses was right its distribution. if Bell sold to the US they would have to block a lot of channels or pgms because some US channel already paid to show those pgms. But we dont have a law against it like they do in Canada.

 

[chiodo]

It's all to do with distribution & licensing rights and money of course, say you create a TV show, you sell the distribution rights to NBC, but only for the USA & PR, you then sell those same rights to CTV in Canada, Nine Network in Australia and so on, so each of those buyers are only permitted to show these shows in their respective territories. So as the creator you've just sold your show to at least four different countries = $$$$.

The laws are in place to protect the licensing rights holder.

 

[mtd]

I'd also agree that this is mainly a rights problem, enforced by national policy and legal precedent. Some of it's obvious; American program producers, for instance, license Canadian channels to distribute their shows only in Canada, not to further compete with U.S. based licensees.

Some of this might not be so obvious. BBC World News, for instance, though hard to get in the U.S. is licensed to the Discovery Channel people, as I understand it. Some version of CBC Newsworld also used to be carried in the U.S. - the channel later was turned over to Current - but somebody might still have exclusive rights to that channel in the U.S. somehow. Keeping the national systems separate simplifies life for programmers in this way.

There might still be a programming niche for a U.S. channel that picked up whatever could be had from Canadian television that wasn't already locked up in licensing agreements like these. We have MHz Worldview on FTA and a few other places that attempts this with other national broadcasters, but the one attempt besides Newsworld to do this - the Trio network - was sold off by the CBC back in 2000.

 

[Bill_KY]

Some version of CBC Newsworld also used to be carried in the U.S. - the channel later was turned over to Current - but somebody might still have exclusive rights to that channel in the U.S. somehow. Keeping the national systems separate simplifies life for programmers in this way.

There might still be a programming niche for a U.S. channel that picked up whatever could be had from Canadian television that wasn't already locked up in licensing agreements like these. We have MHz Worldview on FTA and a few other places that attempts this with other national broadcasters, but the one attempt besides Newsworld to do this - the Trio network - was sold off by the CBC back in 2000.

I used to watch CBC Newsworld a lot when it was run on Direct TV. When they used to show news segments from the U.S. ...they used CBS news as one their sources. I never saw those segments from CBS blocked out or anything. Either CBS news didn't care, or actually approved of it. So why can't we have a all news channel from Canada in the U.S. again ?

 

[Islandguy43]

I would get a Canadian Satellite Service for one reason only; that being able to receive the TSN and Rogerssportnet Programing. Everything from CBC I can get OTA from Toronto. Most Canadians prefer our U.S. programing, at least that is what my relatives state to me.

 

[Mr Tony]

yeah its weird that Canadians want US programming and in some cases vise versa

 

[billpa]

But Canadians have the best of both worlds. They not only get their channels, obviously, but are also able to watch ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Fox, CW, CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc. If Dish or Direct carried that many Canadian channels I might not have Shaw.

 

[joshuals]

They not only get their channels, obviously, but are also able to watch ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Fox, CW, CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc. If Dish or Direct carried that many Canadian channels I might not have Shaw.

Yep......I hear ya!! 100%

At my summer home in far-away Rimouski, QC, the basic-level cable offers ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX, all stations originating from Vermont or New York State, over 300km away. Plus the "expanded" cable offers things like CNN and other American channels.

Try getting cable companies in the US to add CBMT or CFCF from Montreal if said cable company is located 300km from the transmitter. Been there, done that !! All I got from them was a bunch of BS about "rules"...... :rant:

The good news is, when you go to a state fair or the like, and some Dish or Direc salesman starts in on ya from his booth, all ya have to do to defuse their pitch is to ask them if the offer any Canadian content, and when they reply "no", tell 'em "that issue alone just broke the sale". It works great!! They got no comeback for that one.....