So in the USA they have this law:
Is there something similar in Canada?
Is there something similar in Canada?As directed by Congress in Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission adopted the Over-the-Air Reception Device Rule concerning governmental and nongovernmental restrictions on viewers' ability to receive video programming signals from direct broadcast satellites ("DBS"), multichannel multipoint distribution (wireless cable) providers ("MMDS"), and television broadcast stations ("TVBS").
The rule is cited as 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000 and has been in effect since October 14, 1996. It prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming. The rule applies to video antennas including direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39.37") in diameter (or of any size in Alaska), TV antennas, and wireless cable antennas. The rule prohibits most restrictions that: (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal.
As angry as we can all feel as the above, I have been thinking about it and we should stop and honestly think about this; there is a lot of money involved by those companies for the broadcasting systems (even more today than ever with satellites... can we imagine the billions). If we see it the way those companies and the CRTC do see it If there were no control, licensing, rights and limitations, and if everyone could do as they pleased, anyone could use the reason that they are only being good neighbours when in fact, some could be operating black or grey market and jeopardise the life of those companies and at the same time the rights of the poor people (that were mentioned above) that couldn’t afford because of the rates becoming so high due the limited paying users. As hard as it may be to digest, even those signals floating in the air originate from a huge investment from those companies. The only thing one’s own is strictly is equipment not the signal coming through it. Thus the justification for the existence of the CRTC and the regulations. In order for the CRTC to protect the consumers by controlling the pricing, they must also control and regulate the method of use in order to prevent potential abuse. Having written this, I my self have a hard time to digest it but it is still a fact that we have to consider.I read the suggusted thread, and I'm upset about it. I can't believe just allowing somebody to pull a line of my spliter would complicate matters as such. It's as if the government & it's industry scum are trying to control the Canadian population as to what it can see or not.
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/class/law/1.9broadcast.htmlBROADCAST Definition
We define BROADCAST
BROADCAST - A method of sending information over a network. With broadcasting, data comes from one source and goes to all other connected sources. This has the side effect of congesting a medium or large network segment very quickly. Sometimes broadcasting is necessary to locate network resources, but once found, more advanced networking protocols change to point-to-point connections to transmit data. Nowadays, switches and routers often do not pass along broadcast packets, but in the days of shared Ethernet broadcasting could really congest a network.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001808The CRTC publishes all its decisions, which may be appealed to the federal Cabinet within 60 days. The Cabinet can issue policy directives to the CRTC or request a re-examination of any CRTC decision. Cabinet decisions cannot be appealed and few CRTC decisions have been successfully appealed to the courts to date. However, questions of the CRTC's right to license particular services or facilities are increasingly being addressed by the courts when the CRTC has sought an injunction against an unlicensed operator or service.
Challenge the Strata bylaws. They violate the Competition act. Why has no on done this before? It could set a precedent for all Strata to change their bylaws. Any bylaw that restricts my choice of TV provider should be illegal. Strata councils are interfering in the free marketplace.hi,
I live in downtown Toronto. I installed a dish on my condo balcony a few weeks ago and recently received notice to remove it from management. They are quoting a bylaw that reads:
"No television antennae, aerial, tower or similar structure and appurtenances therto shall be erected on or fastened to any unit, except in connection with a common television cable system."
Is there any loophole here?
The only things i can think of is to argue that a satellite dish is not similar to an antennae, aerial or tower. They use different frequencies to receive signals.
Thanks for any help.