Getting D* sub in Canada w/o US Home adress

[SZ56]

Hi all I am new here! I am interested in supplementing my Canadian satellite TV with some American. Why? Because I want Spike and some other channels in HD that are currently only offered in SD in Canada. I do not have a US home address but I do have a US postage mailing address. If there is someway I can order the service without having to go to the trouble of getting a US credit card or vonage that would also be great. Basically all I want is a basic HD package for between 40-60 bucks. I don't care about the Seattle "locals" as I have access to them on my Shaw Direct but would be interested in getting the New Yorks as I am a fan of the Jets.

Thanks,
SZ56

 

[gonzalo8575]

Hi. You can use your canadian credit card as long it's visa or mastercard. Also you can use you US address as long it's a normal one that includes street number and street name. No P.O. Boxes for physical address of the receiver.

Good luck.

 

[Aridon]

If you already have the gear installed and such just use any address in the US that is physical (preferably inside a spot beam or on conus for local networks) and just switch everything over to paperless. I doubt anyone is going to notice or care. I havent' bothered to change my physical address in two years with them and many people "move" all the time.

If you don't already have the gear the make a trip to the us and pick up a receiver and buy a dish on ebay. Then try the above. So long as a tech doesn't have to go out to the house Directv should never know. If something does happen just tell them you stopped renting there and are not located at ... and repeat.

 

[stonecold]

This is illegal ... This is illegal and you all are dumb enough to do it in a forum where multiple Directv Employees read and answer questions in.

 

[sundrop]

This is illegal ... This is illegal and you all are dumb enough to do it in a forum where multiple Directv Employees read and answer questions in.

Must have been sleeping on the job There is typically 2-3 of these posts a day.

 

[wildbill129]

It's not illegal Stone. I can find no US or Canadian law that prohibits a user from buying satellite service from another country. It is a violation of DirecTV's Terms of Service. It is a form of "moving" that many do.

 

[HIFI]

Must have been sleeping on the job There is typically 2-3 of these posts a day.

:up:haha

 

[Mr Tony]

It's not illegal Stone. I can find no US or Canadian law that prohibits a user from buying satellite service from another country. It is a violation of DirecTV's Terms of Service. It is a form of "moving" that many do.

actually the CRTC (Canada's version of the FCC) does say its illegal to subscribe to D* or E*

 

[Kheldar]

It's not illegal Stone. I can find no US or Canadian law that prohibits a user from buying satellite service from another country. It is a violation of DirecTV's Terms of Service. It is a form of "moving" that many do.

It is illegal to receive non-Canadian satellite broadcaster signals in Canada.
Canadian Supreme Court ruling 4/26/2002:

I. Introduction
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] 1 This appeal involves an issue that has divided courts in our country. It concerns the proper interpretation of s. 9(1)(c) of the Radiocommunication Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2 (as am. by S.C. 1991, c. 11, s. 83). In practical terms, the issue is whether s. 9(1)(c) prohibits the decoding of all encrypted satellite signals, with a limited exception, or whether it bars only the unauthorized decoding of signals that emanate from licensed Canadian distributors.

2 The respondents facilitate what is generally referred to as “grey marketing” of foreign broadcast signals. Although there is much debate -- indeed rhetoric -- about the term, it is not necessary to enter that discussion in these reasons. Rather, the central issue is the much narrower one surrounding the above statutory provision: does s. 9(1)(c) operate on these facts to prohibit the decryption of encrypted signals emanating from U.S. broadcasters? For the reasons that follow, my conclusion is that it does have this effect. Consequently, I would allow the appeal.

So the Canadian Supreme Court names one particular law ("s. 9(1)(c)") and then states that that law prohibits "decryption of encrypted signals emanating from U.S. broadcasters".

This isn't just a "violation of DirecTV's Terms of Service", it is a violation of Canadian law, as decided by the Canadian Supreme Court in 2002.

Section 2:

6 The respondent, Richard Rex, carries on business as Can-Am Satellites. The other respondents are employees of, or independent contractors working for, Can-Am Satellites. The respondents are engaged in the business of selling U.S. DTH decoding systems to Canadian customers who wish to subscribe to the services offered by the U.S. DTH broadcasters, which make use of satellites owned and operated by U.S. companies and parked in orbital slots assigned to the U.S. The footprints pertaining to the U.S. DTH broadcasters are large enough for their signals to be receivable in much of Canada, but because these broadcasters will not knowingly authorize their signals to be decoded by persons outside of the U.S., the respondents also provide U.S. mailing addresses for their customers who do not already have one. The respondents then contact the U.S. DTH broadcasters on behalf of their customers, providing the customer’s name, U.S. mailing address, and credit card number. Apparently, this suffices to satisfy the U.S. DTH broadcasters that the subscriber is resident in the U.S., and they then activate the customer’s smart card.

In Section III(11) of this ruling, they quote the above-mentioned rule "s. 9(1)(c)":

9. (1) No person shall

...

(c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;

So if you decode a DirecTV or DishNetwork signal in a way "otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization" (meaning in violation of their Terms of Service), you are violating Canadian law.

DirecTV's Customer Agreement clearly states:

Thank you for choosing DIRECTV. DIRECTV provides digital satellite entertainment programming and services (referred to collectively as "Service") to residents of the United States. We do not provide Service to addresses outside of the United States.

So simply by receiving DirecTV services outside of the United States, you are violating DirecTV's Customer Agreement, and according to the quoted Canadian Supreme Court ruling, the fact that you are receiving DirecTV signals in violation of DirecTV's Customer Agreement means you are violating Canadian law.

The next section in this ruling quotes the punishment for illegal reception of non-Canadian service. Notice that although it starts talking about manufacturers or importers of the equipment, it eventually does get down to "every person who... operates or possesses any equipment or device" (meaning users of non-Canadian satellite equipment) is also guilty and the same punishment applies:

10. (1) Every person who

...

(b) without lawful excuse, manufactures, imports, distributes, leases, offers for sale, sells, installs, modifies, operates or possesses any equipment or device, or any component thereof, under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the equipment, device or component has been used, or is or was intended to be used, for the purpose of contravening section 9,



is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both, or, in the case of a corporation, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars.

I found this ruling with less than 5 minutes of Google searching. If you "can find no US or Canadian law that prohibits a user from buying satellite service from another country", you didn't try hard.

According the the above-quoted ruling, it is illegal to even import DirecTV equipment into the country, let alone actually subscribe to the service.

 

[PMKS]

Wasn't most of the above passed because of the widespread "problem" some years back?

So the question arises...
is it illegal to sub to Canadian Sat services in the U.S.?
And does Mexico have any laws against subbing to U.S. or Canadian Sat services?

just curious

 

[stonecold]

Canadian sat there is no laws the company just doesnt allow it.

Mexico I have no idea.

Just like I have no idea why this thread has not been moved ot the waste bin and has been unlocked.


P.S. If the OP is such a jets fan it would be cheaper for him to simply just order NFLST for the whopping Shaw direct price of 99 dollars. Next time come back better excuse .