ARR - You've raised an interesting issue.

The operative word is "authorization" and we mean statutory authorization not that quasi-contractual authorization found in the user agreement.

Statutory authorization exists when the lawful distributor makes its signal available on payment of a subscription fee or other charge.

Nothing in law demands you use a Bell ExpressVu or StarChoice receiver.

The reasoning which clinches your argument is found at 10.2.5 of the Radiocommunication Act: "No person shall be convicted of an offence under paragraph 9(1)(c), (d) or (e) if the person exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence."

Furthermore ExpressVu's user agreement clearly states that the DTH equipment is obtained seperately and apart from the agreement for programming.

So if a FTA user has made sure to pay Bell ExpressVu a subscription fee or other charge for its programming then the statutory authorization under 9(1)(c) has been met.

A clear case of 'NO SUIT'.

You may have pissed off the service provider but you have not breached the statute or offended the public!

When a person is in lawful possession of DTH satellite apparatus, which receives subscription programming in consideration for payment of a subscription fee or other charge paid by that person or another, the equipment remains authorized regardless of who possesses it or the geographical location where it is deployed.

Section 10(1)(b) of the Radiocommunication Act is not there to convict persons who have obtained the statutory authorization, directly or indirectly, to decode an encrypted subscription-programming signal pursuant to Section 9(1)(c).

Statutory authorization exists when the lawful distributor makes its signal available on payment of a subscription fee or other charge.