# Canadian Judge Rules against banning of US DBS



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

A Judge ruling today in a Quebec court finds that the Radio Communications Act of Canada violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in regards to banning the reception of foreign satellite signals.

_*Thursday October 28, 2004*_

"La Tribune" (newspaper) archives.
The judge Danielle Côté

Television Signals
The CRTC exceeds its rights

Claude Plante
"La Tribune"
Sherbrooke

The Canadian Council of broadcasting and telecommunications (CRTC) exceeds his rights when it prohibits the capture of satellite pay television signals coming from outside of Canada using decoding equipment.

The judge Danielle Côté, of the Court of Quebec, returned this decision, Thursday at the law courts of Sherbrooke, in a cause which was born a few years ago.

In a judgement of 100 pages, she pronounces a verdict of not guilty on each chief (of accusation) deposited in 1998 against two residents of Drummondville, Richard Thériault and Jacques D' Argy.

According to the judge, the prohibition to decode signals contravenes the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms.

The lawsuit in this business proceeded in 2000 at Drummondville.

More details in the "La Tribune" Friday edition.


----------



## peano (Feb 1, 2004)

Here is a link from an English paper:

http://www.canada.com/fortstjohn/story.html?id=d984af71-f92d-4a94-b349-c2a66f161803


----------



## jegrant (Mar 24, 2002)

I wonder if Sky Angel will take advantage of this opportunity? They have stated in the past that they were blocked by the CRTC from offering their service north of the border. They (potentially) might even be one of the few services that could easily offer programming to Canadians, because (IMO) very few blackouts would be required, as most of the programming is not from commercial networks or syndicators, and I'm sure that most of the religious programmers would love to be seen internationally.


----------



## Bob Haller (Mar 24, 2002)

sky angel could use the subs too.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

OK what about our rights and freedoms here in the U.S.? Will we ever be able to receive Canadian channels? If we can receive Mexican and foreign channels, then why can't we receive Canadian channels? If Canada is going to be able to receive our channels and shows (which they already do) then we should be able to receive all of theirs as well.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Yeah that is a good point. This could be the beginning of opening up the market for more competition right off the bat in both countries offering more choice.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

theratpatrol said:


> OK what about our rights and freedoms here in the U.S.? Will we ever be able to receive Canadian channels?


American reception of non-approved foreign satellites is illegal under US law, not just the judgement of the FCC.

Note I said the satellites. If the channels want US distribution they can obtain that by working deals with satellites that are permitted to broadcast in to the US. Since their programming could be subject to blackout in the US, the special feed to the US would not be what ExpressVue viewers get.

JL


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Under which law? Can you please cite it?


----------



## Jaspear (May 16, 2004)

mnassour said:


> Under which law? Can you please cite it?


Good grief! Here we go again!


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

No, not really. It's just that I've heard this time after time again, yet no one has ever quoted the chapter and verse of the law. It's not that I'm trying to start a fight...I'm just wondering exactly what chapter and verse of the law says so.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mnassour said:


> Under which law? Can you please cite it?


Once again for the slow to accept the truth ...
(j) Receive-only earth stations operating with non-U.S. licensed space stations shall file an FCC Form 312 requesting a license or modification to operate such station.
_47 C.F.R. § 25.131(j)_​So if a US installed DBS dish is pointed at ExpressVue and is not licensed, the installation is in violation of the law. (There is an exception for satellites on an FCC list ... Canadian DBS did NOT make the list.)

Of course, you probably won't believe that - but you can remain ignorant without changing the law. 

BTW: DirecTV filed a blanket license to cover one million antennas for reception of their locals on 72.5 , and that license was granted. Upholding the fact that a license is required for stations in the US to receive signals from non-US satellites.

JL


----------



## mhking (Oct 28, 2002)

mnassour said:


> Under which law? Can you please cite it?


Didn't we just go through this arguement?


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

No, that's good. Thanks for the info, I'll look it up. mn


----------

