Canadian satellite

[habfan13]

We love in North East Oklahoma and are trying to find out if there is any way we could get satellite TV from Canada
my wife is from Canada so i wanted to try and get it for us any help or information would be appreciated

 

[jaytee4320]

We love in North East Oklahoma and are trying to find out if there is any way we could get satellite TV from Canada
my wife is from Canada so i wanted to try and get it for us any help or information would be appreciated

If you search for Canadian Satellite Services on this forum you'll find info about Bell and Shaw Direct but only Shaw would available to you...and of course you will need an account.

 

[habfan13]

If you search for Canadian Satellite Services on this forum you'll find info about Bell and Shaw Direct but only Shaw would available to you...and of course you will need an account.

Do you know of anyone who can help me obtain a account can you PM me thanks

 

[LEEHRAT]

New pay service on Roku list with canada channels, very cheap

 

[Cham]

Some C-band on 107W if you can find a big dish..

 

[osu1991]

If you have decent internet, say around 25MB down. You could use a vpn and stream CBC, CTV, Citytv from their websites. They are geolocked to Canadian ip’s, so the vpn will get around that.

 

[harshness]

If you search for Canadian Satellite Services on this forum you'll find info about Bell and Shaw Direct but only Shaw would available to you...and of course you will need an account.

With their ongoing transition to different satellites, Shaw's CONUS coverage may be a stretch in Oklahoma.

 

[STINE]

Some C-band on 107W if you can find a big dish..

Hello my friend, what have you seen up there? Please PM me. Thank you.

 

[miguelaqui]

CTV is on 107 C Band, but 107 is going away in September when the satellite is retired. I think the best best would be to get Shaw Direct and just use 111.

 

[Fragpole]

With their ongoing transition to different satellites, Shaw's CONUS coverage may be a stretch in Oklahoma.

I really wonder how many customers they've lost in these transitions. Starchoice used to be available as far south as Honduras back in the day.

 

[joshuals]

I really wonder how many customers they've lost in these transitions. Starchoice used to be available as far south as Honduras back in the day.

That's true. But it should be remembered that they have never been under any obligation to provide direct-to-home TV to anyone outside Canada. In fact, the rules of the CRTC (the Canadian version of the FCC) are that they cannot knowingly provide service to anyone but those who have a Canadian service address on their account and whose receivers are located in Canada, regardless of the limits of the coverage of the satellites they use.

The fact that all these years have gone by and there that are those outside Canada who are currently receiving service by some manner or means is the result of a sort-of "don't ask, don't tell" policy on Shaw's part.

The "Home Away From Home" policy for subscribers disappeared several years ago, though there may be some folks who are grandfathered in. But even that policy was never intended to have receivers located outside the bounds of Canada.

 

[harshness]

In fact, the rules of the CRTC (the Canadian version of the FCC) are that they cannot knowingly provide service to anyone but those who have a Canadian service address on their account and whose receivers are located in Canada, regardless of the limits of the coverage of the satellites they use.

I don't think this is true at all.

If there are any restrictions on what is exported from Canada, it would be by contract with the content providers. The CRTC rules are aimed at giving an advantage to Canadian content providers within the borders and not about Canadian carriers.

 

[joshuals]

I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the rules and regulations of the CRTC. But my source of information is at the following link:

Shaw Direct In Areas South of Canada (Mexico, US, etc)...

 

[DJdish]

Many people in the "most southern provinces" (myself included) canceled their subs when Shaw started the transition of channels to G1, which no longer covered the same footprint as F1 and F2, yep there were many folks as far down as Central America happy with the service.

All of them with duly paid subs w Cndn addresses.

 

[harshness]

I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the rules and regulations of the CRTC. But my source of information is at the following link:

Shaw Direct In Areas South of Canada (Mexico, US, etc)...

Absent a citation (moderators aren't always omnicient), I'm dubious.

I freely admit that I could be wrong but I'd be surprised if the Canadian government got involved in restricting export of Canadian intellectual property. NAFTA is broken, but not that broken.

 

[showtime]

Can I watch my subscription in the United States?
This is not approved or supported by Shaw Direct. Breaking Shaw Terms of Service can lead to account deactivation. If it was illegal by government, they would stop every motor home going across with a dish. Doesn't happen. Shaw can not knowingly support anyone outside of Canada as their license is for Canada only. They would be in trouble otherwise. Not you.


Is the CRTC controlled by the government?
The CRTC is governed by the Broadcasting Act of 1991 and the Telecommunications Act of 1993. ... Today, the CRTC is an independent public authority and reports to Parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage

F1 is on the way out and F2 is the only satellite available in the US now. The channels on it can be found here.

Shaw Direct on Anik F2 at 111.1°W - LyngSat

www.lyngsat.com

The best option now is getting an internet sub and using IPTV tons of channels available from across Canada, US, UK and includes many international channels as well as movies and tv series.

 

[Keith Brannen]

Absent a citation (moderators aren't always omnicient), I'm dubious.

I freely admit that I could be wrong but I'd be surprised if the Canadian government got involved in restricting export of Canadian intellectual property. NAFTA is broken, but not that broken.

The moderator on the forum (57) sums it up very well.

Direct-to-home (DTH) satellite broadcasting

Industry Canada is very concerned about the continuing sale and use of illegal satellite decoding equipment. The Department is taking action to raise awareness of this issue and encourage electronic equipment retailers and consumers to refrain from participating in this unlawful type of business...

www.ic.gc.ca

explains the government/CRTC position on both black and grey market areas. The FAQ at the bottom gives a detailed explanation of various situations. As it mentions, NAFTA is involved as well. Distribution rights, etc., would be reciprocal between both countries, you don't do it in our country, we won't do it in yours.

 

[harshness]

explains the government/CRTC position on both black and grey market areas. The FAQ at the bottom gives a detailed explanation of various situations.

Black market is piracy and that's obviously covered by laws against theft and any penalties would be against the end users. The references to "grey market" are explicitly defined as selling US content into Canada and they revolve around the end user misrepresenting where they live -- a violation of the ToS. Violation of the ToS isn't a legal issue but it does put the provider in a bind with respect to their carriage contract terms. The FAQ explains the motivations and regulations behind the prohibition of bringing US content in but doesn't say anything about the other direction.

Absent authoritative evidence, I retain my position that the "rules" in play are contracts with the content providers and not CRTC (or FCC) regulations. Violations of these contracts aren't in the purview of the CRTC (or the FCC).

 

[Keith Brannen]

Black market is piracy and that's obviously covered by laws against theft and any penalties would be against the end users. The references to "grey market" are explicitly defined as selling US content into Canada and they revolve around the end user misrepresenting where they live -- a violation of the ToS. Violation of the ToS isn't a legal issue but it does put the provider in a bind with respect to their carriage contract terms. The FAQ explains the motivations and regulations behind the prohibition of bringing US content in but doesn't say anything about the other direction.

Absent authoritative evidence, I retain my position that the "rules" in play are contracts with the content providers and not CRTC (or FCC) regulations. Violations of these contracts aren't in the purview of the CRTC (or the FCC).

Did you not read the section "The Radiocommunication Act and the Grey Market" or the FAQ section "5. Why does Canada have rules making the reception of American DTH programming illegal"? States quite explicitly it is not, as you say, "just" a ToS violation, it is illegal.

Here is a link to the Radiocommunication Act section 9 (1)(c) (note, punishments for violations are on the following page):

Radiocommunication Act

Federal laws of Canada

laws.justice.gc.ca

And, it is illegal in the US to do the same:

Committee Report No. 2 - HERI (37-2) - House of Commons of Canada

Committee Report No. 2 - HERI (37-2) - House of Commons of Canada

www.ourcommons.ca

See the section entitled: E. The "Reverse Grey Market"
To quote a section of it (and note the FCC regulation):
"However, just as it is illegal to receive unlicenced American satellite signals at Canadian addresses, in the United States it is illegal to receive unlicenced Canadian satellite signals at American addresses. Under current U.S. FCC licencing, no Canadian satellite signal provider is permitted to broadcast signals to the United States. Nevertheless, the desire to receive Canadian broadcasting in the United States has given rise to the so-called "reverse grey market." This works in much the same way as does the Canadian grey market in U.S. satellite signals."

 

[harshness]

Did you not read the section "The Radiocommunication Act and the Grey Market" or the FAQ section "5. Why does Canada have rules making the reception of American DTH programming illegal"? States quite explicitly it is not, as you say, "just" a ToS violation, it is illegal.

I read it and found no meaningful references to reverse grey-market activities. What part of Canadian rules regarding reception of encrypted US DTH programming applies to the converse?

Here is a link to the Radiocommunication Act section 9 (1)(c) (note, punishments for violations are on the following page):

Perhaps the CRTC may try to insert themselves into a situation where the end-user is not telling the truth but I question their jurisdictional ability to prosecute non-Canadians who are paying for the service. They can certainly notify the carrier of the deception but I suspect that may be the limit of their "power".

And, it is illegal in the US to do the same:

Committee Report No. 2 - HERI (37-2) - House of Commons of Canada

Committee Report No. 2 - HERI (37-2) - House of Commons of Canada

www.ourcommons.ca

See the section entitled: E. The "Reverse Grey Market"
To quote a section of it (and note the FCC regulation):
"However, just as it is illegal to receive unlicenced American satellite signals at Canadian addresses, in the United States it is illegal to receive unlicenced Canadian satellite signals at American addresses. Under current U.S. FCC licencing, no Canadian satellite signal provider is permitted to broadcast signals to the United States. Nevertheless, the desire to receive Canadian broadcasting in the United States has given rise to the so-called "reverse grey market." This works in much the same way as does the Canadian grey market in U.S. satellite signals."

I'd need to see some evidence that the FCC has any control over reception of encrypted programming outside the US as opposed to an oblique suggestion that they're the US mirror of the CRTC. From the standpoint of where the signals can go, it should be noted that satellite licenses for North America are reciprocal since you can't hit one country without touching on the other.

In the US, illegal decryption is a violation of the DMCA and that's US law rather than FCC policy. Any legal action is typically brought by the copyright owner.

There's just too much hand-waving going on with these explanations and I expect that this is probably intentional.