In article <I70Ja.251564$3C2.7285854@no-spam>,
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> writes:
> ...
> And what about people who don't watch BBC? Why should they have to
> contribute to it?
the people who don't watch the advertisement financed stations
contribute to those as well.
hs
--
ceterum censeo SCO esse delendam
Only by buying related products. They get something for it.
"Hartmann Schaffer" <hs@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3ef4dd2c@no-spam
> In article <I70Ja.251564$3C2.7285854@no-spam>,
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> writes:
> > ...
> > And what about people who don't watch BBC? Why should they have to
> > contribute to it?
>
> the people who don't watch the advertisement financed stations
> contribute to those as well.
>
> hs
>
> --
>
> ceterum censeo SCO esse delendam
The government knows perfectly well that control of the media is control of
the people.
"Maximus Bushwhacker" <qweqwe@no-spam> wrote in message
news:%b2Ja.282040$Vi5.7339709@no-spam
> "Bill Van" <billvan@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:billvan-887C78.21365020062003@no-spam
> > In article <BiPIa.247475$3C2.7180584@no-spam>,
> > "Maximus Bushwhacker" <qweqwe@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > That's a good argument in regards to protecting the rights of the
signal
> > > providers, but how about the rights of Canadians to chose the
> programming
> > > they wish to view?
> >
> > This is not a big deal for me and I'm not sure I disagree with what you
> > imply, but what rights are those, exactly? They're not in the Charter, I
> > think.
>
> It depends on how the Charter is interpreted, I suppose. In particular
> section 2(b) "Freedom of though, belief, opinion and expression, including
> freedom of the press and other means of communication;"
>
> I take that as meaning I have the fundamental right to choose my sources
of
> information and news, including from signals that spill over international
> boundaries, not just the ones sanctioned by our government.
>
> > > There are a number of channels carried by the American
> > > providers that are just not available in Canada, and a lot of that
> > > programming is foreign langauge. Under the current laws as written,
our
> > > government is denying some Canadians the right to view programming in
> their
> > > native tounge such as Russian or Arabic (for example).
> >
> > Again, what right is that? The (provincial) government denies me the
> > "right" to drink some of my favorite single malt scotches because it
> > chooses not to import them to B.C. (And it overprices most of the ones
> > it does import.) I'm resentful, but I'll be damned if I know what legal
> > or constitutional right is being denied me because I can't buy a certain
> > commodity here.
>
> To me TV is just another product, like scotch. Your favourite single malt
> scotch is likely not stocked because of low consumer demand and the fact
> that other products are more profitable and popular, say Glenfiddich for
> example. However, if your favourite brand of scotch became popular and
> consumers started asking for it, well looky, there it is on the shelf.
The
> provincial goverment is not denying you access to your favourite product,
> lack of consumer demand is. This is not the case with satellite TV from
the
> US.
>
> > Secondly, I'm not sure if it's the government that's denying anyone
> > those channels or that programming. The CRTC has set up a system whereby
> > the satellite and digital cable providers can pick up nearly anything
> > they pay for as long as they balance it with an equivalent amount of
> > Canadian content. If they haven't picked up a particular channel,
> > perhaps it's those companies that are keeping it out of Canada, not the
> > government. And if they have any brains at all, the people running those
> > companies will import the channels or programs in question if they
> > perceive there is enough of a market to make a buck.
>
> Technically, foreign signals are available to Canadians for example Dish
> Network and DirectTV. If our government creates laws and regulations that
> make it illegal for me to receive signals that are already there, then
they
> are denying me access to that signal, very simple. Canadian providers
don't
> have the capacity yet to mirror every channel and I may want to watch some
> local American news channels.
>
> > As well, the number of channels carried by digital systems continues to
> > increase, and in many cases it may just be a matter of a little patience
> > before Channel X is available here.
>
> Consumer demand, a channel that is viable to carry in the US may not be
> viable to carry in Canada. For example, it may be more profitable to use
> the bandwidth for a video conferencing service or faster satellite
internet
> service.
>
> > It might be that the CRTC's formula is unreasonable and should be
> > amended. But I do think it's legitimate to try to protect Canadian
> > entertainment industries and jobs from the certain death that would
> > follow if the border was opened wide.
>
> Why would opening up the border put our industry at risk? I think a
> significant number of Americans would subscribe to Canadian signals, and
> more than make up for the loss the other way.
>
> > Alternatively, some programming might not be available in Canada because
> > someone already owns the Canadian rights to it, but has chosen for
> > whatever reason not to make them available. I think that's increasingly
> > rare and was more of a factor when cable systems had more severely
> > limited channel capacity a few years ago.
>
> I think that was the case with the world cricket championship last year,
> there was a Canadian distributor that had the rights to carry it but
didn't.
> No big deal to me because I'm not a cricket fan, but I know at least one
> diehard fan that went out and bought a hacked Dish Network system just to
> watch.
>
> > There are probably still instances of no Canadian signal distributor
> > having chosen to acquire the rights to sell a particular signal here.
> > That's the distributor's choice, however, not the government's. It may
> > reflect a perceived lack of a market in Canada, or a choice based on
> > temporarily limited system capacity.
>
> Then effectively (with satellite) we are being denied access to a signal
> that we already technically have... just because there is no Canadian
> distributor. In such cases, Canadians should be allowed to subscribe to
> American providers for at least the programming that isn't available in
> Canada.
>
> > > What would happen if the protections were dropped? Of course a small
> > > percentage of Canadians would switch to American providers, and on the
> other
> > > side of the border, even if just 2 or 3% of the American population
> > > subscribed to Canadian TV, that would be a net gain in subscriptions
for
> > > Canadian signal providers. Dropping the protections would open up a
> > > potential market of 300 million viewers to Canadian programming, we
> would
> > > gain business not lose it!
> > >
> >
> > Canadian programming is for sale now to U.S. distributors. The better
> > productions -- Da Vinci's Inquest, say -- are sold around the world. And
> > I'm fairly sure but not dead certain that U.S. satellite systems, and
> > cable systems in Snowbird areas, already buy the rights to Canadian
> > channels which their Snowbird subscribers buy for news and sports. (They
> > also do some reverse grey-marketing with Canadian satellite dishes.)
>
> The distributors still have control of who can access cross-border signals
> (unless you hack or go grey market), and the current laws that regulate
> control were determined and imposed by government and industry, not by
what
> the consumer wants.
>
> > But my guess is that you'd kill the Canadian satellite and digital
> > systems by allowing unfettered access to U.S. systems. In Canadian
> > cities especially, you can pick up "over the air" the two or three
> > Canadian channels you need for news, and you can get anything else you
> > want off the U.S. systems and their now-forbidden fruit.
>
> That's possible, but also consider the favourable exchange rate, Americans
> may opt to subscribe to Canadian providers for movies and PPV channels
(it's
> all mostly the same content anyway in this regard) and they could save
> 25-35%
>
> > Another difficulty is that all Canadian channels/stations/networks,
> > especially the privately owned ones, carry a lot of U.S. content for
> > which they've purchased the Canadian rights. First, the U.S. would
> > protect its own companies by not allowing that content to be resold in
> > the U.S. by Canadians. So you'd be down to selling individual programs,
> > rather than whole channels.
>
> Wouldn't this create a huge stimulus to produce more Canadian content?
> Canadian networks are reselling American TV wrapped with local and
national
> Canadian news brodcasts and calling it Canadian TV.
>
> > Second, if you could overcome that hurdle, you might be killing
> > Canadian outlets by making the original U.S. providers of programming
> > they carry available here. At the least, there would be a period of
> > dislocation in which I think the Canadian companies would be much more
> > vulnerable than the American ones. There would a legitimate fear of
> > wiping out the Canadian industry. No Canadian government in the
> > foreseeable future, of any stripe, would take that chance.
>
> I think Canadians should have more confidence in their cultural products.
> I've lived in other countries like Russia and I was quite surprised to see
> how much Canadian programming their networks carried. If Canadian culture
> can't survive on it's own without government and industry protectionism,
> then we need to evaluate if it's worth protecting. Hate to say it but
> that's how I honestly feel.
>
> > Enough meandering, however. In general, I think this area is more
> > complicated than it looks, and it's certainly more complex than "the big
> > bad government is denying me free choice."
>
> For sure, though I think the real issue is that our government does not
want
> to relinquish control of the media and the means of communication to
outside
> influences.
>
> -- regards
>
>
"Maximus Bushwhacker" <qweqwe@no-spam> wrote in message
news:%b2Ja.282040$Vi5.7339709@no-spam
> "Bill Van" <billvan@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:billvan-887C78.21365020062003@no-spam
> > Secondly, I'm not sure if it's the government that's denying anyone
> > those channels or that programming. The CRTC has set up a system whereby
> > the satellite and digital cable providers can pick up nearly anything
> > they pay for as long as they balance it with an equivalent amount of
> > Canadian content. If they haven't picked up a particular channel,
> > perhaps it's those companies that are keeping it out of Canada, not the
> > government. And if they have any brains at all, the people running those
> > companies will import the channels or programs in question if they
> > perceive there is enough of a market to make a buck.
>
> Technically, foreign signals are available to Canadians for example Dish
> Network and DirectTV. If our government creates laws and regulations that
> make it illegal for me to receive signals that are already there, then
they
> are denying me access to that signal, very simple. Canadian providers
don't
> have the capacity yet to mirror every channel and I may want to watch some
> local American news channels.
It's a little more complicated than that. For one thing, those U.S.
cable/satellite channels sell the Canadian rights to their programs to
Canadian broadcasters (think HBO selling to Bravo, MovieCentral, Showcase,
and other specialty services.) If a Canadian broadcast distribution
undertaking brings up an American service, then there's the possibility that
the distributor is actually infringing on Canadian broadcasters who have
already bought the rights to some of the US channel's programming by running
the American channel. This is usually solved by either signal substitution
(very familiar) or by blacking out the programming on the US channel until
the Canadian rightsholder runs the programs.
While you may have the freedom to choose from what's available, broadcasters
and distributors can't show you programming for which they don't have the
exhibition rights. The contractual arrangements are made between producers,
distributors, and broadcasters. The government's role is more one of
creating a framework to make this enforceable.
Capacity is a red herring; the digital cable and satellite systems have more
capacity than they're using. Not every specialty channel licenced in Canada
is carried by every distributor; this is usually because the distributor and
specialty channel haven't worked out a contract for the former to carry the
latter.
> > Alternatively, some programming might not be available in Canada because
> > someone already owns the Canadian rights to it, but has chosen for
> > whatever reason not to make them available. I think that's increasingly
> > rare and was more of a factor when cable systems had more severely
> > limited channel capacity a few years ago.
>
> I think that was the case with the world cricket championship last year,
> there was a Canadian distributor that had the rights to carry it but
didn't.
> No big deal to me because I'm not a cricket fan, but I know at least one
> diehard fan that went out and bought a hacked Dish Network system just to
> watch.
That was only available on pay-per-view in Canada.
> > There are probably still instances of no Canadian signal distributor
> > having chosen to acquire the rights to sell a particular signal here.
> > That's the distributor's choice, however, not the government's. It may
> > reflect a perceived lack of a market in Canada, or a choice based on
> > temporarily limited system capacity.
>
> Then effectively (with satellite) we are being denied access to a signal
> that we already technically have... just because there is no Canadian
> distributor. In such cases, Canadians should be allowed to subscribe to
> American providers for at least the programming that isn't available in
> Canada.
Again, though, the U.S. channels would have to arrange with its suppliers to
get the rights to exhibit the program in Canada if they don't currently have
those rights. If a Canadian company has the exclusive Canadian rights to
some of the programming, then the US channel will face blackout or will have
to negotiate a deal with any Canadian rightsholder.
> The distributors still have control of who can access cross-border signals
> (unless you hack or go grey market), and the current laws that regulate
> control were determined and imposed by government and industry, not by
what
> the consumer wants.
The consumer generally gives not a damn for who has the rights to exhibit a
particular program in what place, or whether all the contractual i's and t's
have been seen to. Broadcasters want to make sure that they're getting what
they paid for when they acquire programming, and they'll try to make sure
that someone doesn't just waltz in playing by a different set of rules and
undercut them in the process.
> For sure, though I think the real issue is that our government does not
want
> to relinquish control of the media and the means of communication to
outside
> influences.
Most of the simulus for turf-protection comes from those who have built
their business around the existing broadcasting framework, and not so much
so from government. Most of the input from government comes either from acts
of Parliament (Broacasting Act, Radiocommunication Act, Telecommunications
Act) or the occasional direction to the CRTC. Within the bounds of those
laws, it's up to the commission to balance the various needs of consumer,
producer, distributor, etc.
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
"Bill Van" <billvan@no-spam> wrote in message
news:billvan-56A33B.02434521062003@no-spam
> In article <3EF40AB4.9040301@no-spam>, sdgreen <sd.green@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
> > It will be interesting to see how this whole question unfolds in the
> > next few years. I understand that applications are being made to
> > convert both the AM and FM bands to digital. We already have digital
> > Satellite audio on a subscription basis.
> >
>
> The CRTC has had a digital radio plan since the mid-1990s. Some
> stations, including CBC, are broadcasting digitally and have been for a
> few years. I haven't heard it but I gather the sound quality is supposed
> to be better than FM, with some bandwidth available for some display
> screen information, like information on what song is playing. Finally,
> radio with pictures.
I've given digital radio a few test-drives. I'd say that the sound quality
is on par with a CD, although the earphones on the receiver probably limited
the audio more than anything else.
A nice feature of digital radio is the ability to put low-power transmitters
to fill in "dead spots" so that a station's coverage isn't interrupted by
geographical oddities -- much like a cellular phone, the user doens't have
to manually change frequencies. Same goes from stations that have repeaters
in other cities. For stations that have repeaters, that's a bonus -- no more
of this "94.3 in Prince George, 95.9 in Vanderhoof, 94.7 in Fort St. James"
stuff. The user selectes that station by name from the display, and the
receiver switches from signal to signal as the listener travels about.
> But the radio industry is not willing to invest heavily in digital
> broadcast technology until there are enough receivers out there to make
> it worthwhile. So far, I don't see a breakthrough, critical-mass level
> of saturation to make this technology take off.
The situation's improved quite a bit in the last few years. In 1999, there
were only a couple of digital radio transmitters in Canada, each carrying a
few stations. 12 stations in Vancouver simulcast on digital; with receivers
down into the $300 price range, earlt adopters are probably going to be more
likely to buy the sets.
I suspect that most stations will keep their current ad-supported business
models after they've migrated to digital, so that the listener is not paying
any sort of a subscription fee for most stations.
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Gn0Ja.280356$Vi5.7319394@no-spam
> Whether it is against the law or not, they can't tell me I am not allowed
to
> use that technology on moral grounds. You see, the laws are only there to
> prevent other people from mass-producing and distributing the patented
> techology. If I procure something such as a satallite decoder, I should
be
> able to use it in any way I want to.
Regardless, if the programming is offered on a paid subscription basis, and
you access it without complying with the terms of service, aren't you still
stealing it?
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
"sdgreen" <sd.green@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF40AB4.9040301@no-spam
> It will be interesting to see how this whole question unfolds in the
> next few years. I understand that applications are being made to
> convert both the AM and FM bands to digital. We already have digital
> Satellite audio on a subscription basis.
The digital satellite radio and the land-based systems are two different
beasts. One is a new service offering things like commercial-free music and
specialty radio channels; the other the migration of existing broadcasting
undertakings to a new band and technology over the next decade.
> Once the AM/FM stuff is converted, then subscriptions will be the new
> rule (already covered in the Broadcasting Act/Regs)
You're assuming that the market for radio supported by commercial
advertising as opposed to subscription fees will disappear. I see no sign of
this happening. If you're in Vancouver, you can pick up a digital receiver
for a few hundred dollars and listen to a dozen existing AM and FM stations
broadcasting in digital.
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
Still, they have the option of not supporting, as well... I suppose that
perhaps we could do well with a system like that, but then people would have
to be able to remove stations that were useless, or just not pay for them.
"Hartmann Schaffer" <hs@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3ef4f1eb@no-spam
> In article <5w5Ja.256434$ro6.6615959@no-spam>,
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> writes:
> > Only by buying related products.
>
> and paying for whatever is budgeted for advertising in the price
> calculations
>
> > They get something for it.
>
> only for part of what they pay
>
> hs
>
> > ...
> >> > And what about people who don't watch BBC? Why should they have to
> >> > contribute to it?
> >>
> >> the people who don't watch the advertisement financed stations
> >> contribute to those as well.
>
> --
>
> ceterum censeo SCO esse delendam
Whisc would be fine by me. However, they should not convert theAM and FM
bands; this would cause a lot of trouble. People have many such recievers
and also have many such transmitters, and such a conversion would cause the
obsolescence of all those. And I am certain that they have the technology
to broadcast at a higher frequency - perhaps they could even broadcast
subfrequencies, since the sound quality seems so much improved.
Perhaps a system like this: Band D-AO (Digital - Audio Only) has
frequencies... say (I dont know if they are in use; I cant be bothered to
dig up the table) 755 through 897 Megahertz. All the useful channels could
be extracted from this, and each goven a sub-band, or secondary freqency,
used in channels (Just a side note: this could be used for a category; one
for rock, another for classical, etc.). This is much the same way that FM
works, except that in FM the second frequency is very dynamic. Then, each
station is assigned two channels which reference each other periodically.
The reciever tunes to both of these and downloads, relatively slowly, two
audio tracks at once, probably compressed if necessary. Then, one would be
played while the other was downloading, so that even though the stream may
be individually slower than necessary for superior audio, together they are
not and can play CD-quality.
This would work just fine, as the technology is already being used in the
military (for communications) and has been for some time, in a similar form.
It is also used in wireless networks and no problems are encountered. The
two-source simultaneous download is my invention, and perhaps it may be too
fast... but one track could be easily dropped. This would also make the
playlists rather dynamic.
"Ian King" <iankingREMOVETHIS@no-spam> wrote in message
news:m18Ja.284598$Vi5.7407090@no-spam
> "Bill Van" <billvan@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:billvan-56A33B.02434521062003@no-spam
> > In article <3EF40AB4.9040301@no-spam>, sdgreen <sd.green@no-spam>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It will be interesting to see how this whole question unfolds in the
> > > next few years. I understand that applications are being made to
> > > convert both the AM and FM bands to digital. We already have digital
> > > Satellite audio on a subscription basis.
> > >
> >
> > The CRTC has had a digital radio plan since the mid-1990s. Some
> > stations, including CBC, are broadcasting digitally and have been for a
> > few years. I haven't heard it but I gather the sound quality is supposed
> > to be better than FM, with some bandwidth available for some display
> > screen information, like information on what song is playing. Finally,
> > radio with pictures.
>
> I've given digital radio a few test-drives. I'd say that the sound quality
> is on par with a CD, although the earphones on the receiver probably
limited
> the audio more than anything else.
>
> A nice feature of digital radio is the ability to put low-power
transmitters
> to fill in "dead spots" so that a station's coverage isn't interrupted by
> geographical oddities -- much like a cellular phone, the user doens't have
> to manually change frequencies. Same goes from stations that have
repeaters
> in other cities. For stations that have repeaters, that's a bonus -- no
more
> of this "94.3 in Prince George, 95.9 in Vanderhoof, 94.7 in Fort St.
James"
> stuff. The user selectes that station by name from the display, and the
> receiver switches from signal to signal as the listener travels about.
>
> > But the radio industry is not willing to invest heavily in digital
> > broadcast technology until there are enough receivers out there to make
> > it worthwhile. So far, I don't see a breakthrough, critical-mass level
> > of saturation to make this technology take off.
>
> The situation's improved quite a bit in the last few years. In 1999, there
> were only a couple of digital radio transmitters in Canada, each carrying
a
> few stations. 12 stations in Vancouver simulcast on digital; with
receivers
> down into the $300 price range, earlt adopters are probably going to be
more
> likely to buy the sets.
>
> I suspect that most stations will keep their current ad-supported business
> models after they've migrated to digital, so that the listener is not
paying
> any sort of a subscription fee for most stations.
>
> --
> ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
> more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
>
>
No, because it is broadcast.
"Ian King" <iankingREMOVETHIS@no-spam> wrote in message
news:p28Ja.256913$ro6.6630989@no-spam
>
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:Gn0Ja.280356$Vi5.7319394@no-spam
> > Whether it is against the law or not, they can't tell me I am not
allowed
> to
> > use that technology on moral grounds. You see, the laws are only there
to
> > prevent other people from mass-producing and distributing the patented
> > techology. If I procure something such as a satallite decoder, I should
> be
> > able to use it in any way I want to.
>
> Regardless, if the programming is offered on a paid subscription basis,
and
> you access it without complying with the terms of service, aren't you
still
> stealing it?
>
> --
> ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
> more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
>
>
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:kdqJa.261170$3C2.7502347@no-spam
> Whisc would be fine by me. However, they should not convert theAM and FM
> bands; this would cause a lot of trouble. People have many such recievers
> and also have many such transmitters, and such a conversion would cause
the
> obsolescence of all those. And I am certain that they have the technology
> to broadcast at a higher frequency - perhaps they could even broadcast
> subfrequencies, since the sound quality seems so much improved.
The plan is to eventually shut down the AM and FM transmitters and
reallocate that spectrum to other uses. (The 88-108 MHz band is particularly
useful.) Optimistic projections call for the switch to be complete by 2010,
but I think that it's not going to be that soon. FM stations are still
starting up, so you can be sure that their owners are expecting to amortize
the cost of he transmission equipment over more than seven years, By the
time the changeover is complete, the cost of digital receivers will be down
to a fraction of what it is now.
The digital audio broadcast band is 1452-1492 MHz, which allows for both
land-based and satellite transmissions.
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:beqJa.261175$3C2.7502144@no-spam
> No, because it is broadcast.
>
It's encrypted so that only those who have made arrangements to comply with
the terms on which the programming has been offered will be permitted to
receive. Those terms are different than those of conventional over-the-air
TV or radio.
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
"sdgreen" <sd.green@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF64DB3.7080702@no-spam
> Ian King wrote:
for radio supported by commercial
> > advertising as opposed to subscription fees will disappear. I see no
sign of
> > this happening. If you're in Vancouver, you can pick up a digital
receiver
> > for a few hundred dollars and listen to a dozen existing AM and FM
stations
> > broadcasting in digital.
> >
>
> Interesting Ian; You said that you have listened to a couple of digital
> units, can quote the brands?
Pioneer and Blaupunkt have started offering car stereos with DAB capability
in Canada. The British company Perstel offers portable DAB/FM receivers
about the size of a pack of cigarettes. One Perstel model also includes an
integrated MP3 player; that one will set you back around $400. Radio Shack
sells the Perstel units in Canadian cities that have DAB.
You can find a partial listing of what's available on digitalradio.ca. The
site also has coverage maps for Canadian cities where DAB has progressed
beyond the experimental stage.
There are more units available in Europe than in Canada. The European
transition to DAB is considerably further along than it is in Canada -- the
Canadian roll-out was delayed by negotiations with the U.S. government,
which had allocated the 1452-1492 MHz spectrum for military uses.
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
Ian King wrote:
> "sdgreen" <sd.green@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF64DB3.7080702@no-spam
>
>>Interesting Ian; You said that you have listened to a couple of digital
>>units, can quote the brands?
>
>
> Here's the one with MP3 capability that I mentioned in my above post:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ezl8
>
> Looks like Rat Shack's flogging the thing for $349.
>
==================================
Ian, thanks for the info ...
"sdgreen" <sd.green@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EF67CDB.5090509@no-spam
> Ian King wrote:
> > "sdgreen" <sd.green@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3EF64DB3.7080702@no-spam
> >
> >>Interesting Ian; You said that you have listened to a couple of digital
> >>units, can quote the brands?
> >
> >
> > Here's the one with MP3 capability that I mentioned in my above post:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/ezl8
> >
> > Looks like Rat Shack's flogging the thing for $349.
> >
>
> ==================================
>
> Ian, thanks for the info ...
No prob. My first media experience was in radio (when I was 18 years old.)
The whole digital radio arena has had my attention for nearly a decade now.
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
Eric; More of your liberal dezinformatsia?
FOX News is about to put CNN, ABC, et. al. out of business! Much more
informative and popular than all the rest put together, simply because it is
TRUTHFUL.
You liberals should try truth sometimes. Reality. It works.
"Ericİ" <eschild@no-spam> wrote in message
news:7632539d.0306191818.242df424@no-spam
> Erik Trammel <jlambourn@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Because the Liberal government's CRTC wants to promote
> > Canadian Nationalism and socialism, it prevents Canadians
> > from seeing certain American TV networks hoping that the
> > people will be forced to watch the CBC and other Canadian
> > networks and local channels sanctioned by the CRTC.
> [snip]
>
> Oh come on, JR. You are once again whining because "Fox News" isn't
> available on cable in your local viewing area.
>
> As has been pointed out trillions of times before, CanWest Global
> already has the rights to carry Fox News in Canada, but has chosen not
> to do so because they have found through viewer surveys that it would
> be a money loser.
>
> Now why the hell don't you stop whining, and also quit watching so
> much TeeVee?
>
> Eric
Then why can't they just expand or simply utilise that band? Digital
signal, unlike FM, apparently requires far less bandwidth due to its lesser
variations in frequency.
"Ian King" <iankingREMOVETHIS@no-spam> wrote in message
news:szqJa.261246$3C2.7506621@no-spam
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:kdqJa.261170$3C2.7502347@no-spam
> > Whisc would be fine by me. However, they should not convert theAM and
FM
> > bands; this would cause a lot of trouble. People have many such
recievers
> > and also have many such transmitters, and such a conversion would cause
> the
> > obsolescence of all those. And I am certain that they have the
technology
> > to broadcast at a higher frequency - perhaps they could even broadcast
> > subfrequencies, since the sound quality seems so much improved.
>
> The plan is to eventually shut down the AM and FM transmitters and
> reallocate that spectrum to other uses. (The 88-108 MHz band is
particularly
> useful.) Optimistic projections call for the switch to be complete by
2010,
> but I think that it's not going to be that soon. FM stations are still
> starting up, so you can be sure that their owners are expecting to
amortize
> the cost of he transmission equipment over more than seven years, By the
> time the changeover is complete, the cost of digital receivers will be
down
> to a fraction of what it is now.
>
> The digital audio broadcast band is 1452-1492 MHz, which allows for both
> land-based and satellite transmissions.
>
> --
> ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
> more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
>
>
We do not need any more to "transfer" than we needed to from AM
transmission. That band seems to continue in place. Perhaps we could
re-allocate it only? It would provide more than enough space, I am certain.
"Ian King" <iankingREMOVETHIS@no-spam> wrote in message
news:cysJa.290193$Vi5.7603422@no-spam
> "sdgreen" <sd.green@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF64DB3.7080702@no-spam
> > Ian King wrote:
> for radio supported by commercial
> > > advertising as opposed to subscription fees will disappear. I see no
> sign of
> > > this happening. If you're in Vancouver, you can pick up a digital
> receiver
> > > for a few hundred dollars and listen to a dozen existing AM and FM
> stations
> > > broadcasting in digital.
> > >
> >
> > Interesting Ian; You said that you have listened to a couple of digital
> > units, can quote the brands?
>
> Pioneer and Blaupunkt have started offering car stereos with DAB
capability
> in Canada. The British company Perstel offers portable DAB/FM receivers
> about the size of a pack of cigarettes. One Perstel model also includes an
> integrated MP3 player; that one will set you back around $400. Radio Shack
> sells the Perstel units in Canadian cities that have DAB.
>
> You can find a partial listing of what's available on digitalradio.ca. The
> site also has coverage maps for Canadian cities where DAB has progressed
> beyond the experimental stage.
>
> There are more units available in Europe than in Canada. The European
> transition to DAB is considerably further along than it is in Canada --
the
> Canadian roll-out was delayed by negotiations with the U.S. government,
> which had allocated the 1452-1492 MHz spectrum for military uses.
>
> --
> ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
> more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
>
>
>
So? It is data being streamed to me. I have the right to manipulate it if
I like. It may be encrypted with the intent of making it easier for those
who pay to use the signal, hiwever they cannot ever make it impossible for
others to do so; nor should they be able to except by running cable.
"Ian King" <iankingREMOVETHIS@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1CqJa.261253$3C2.7507123@no-spam
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:beqJa.261175$3C2.7502144@no-spam
> > No, because it is broadcast.
> >
>
> It's encrypted so that only those who have made arrangements to comply
with
> the terms on which the programming has been offered will be permitted to
> receive. Those terms are different than those of conventional over-the-air
> TV or radio.
>
> --
> ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
> more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
>
>
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:IlQJa.296012$Vi5.7864308@no-spam
> Then why can't they just expand or simply utilise that band? Digital
> signal, unlike FM, apparently requires far less bandwidth due to its
lesser
> variations in frequency.
The space above arounf the FM broadcast band is already spoken for, while
the new band will be twice the width of the FM band allowing for far more
signals to be carried in a single area, which means more room for specialty
stations, community broadcasters, third-language stations, et cetera. The FM
band is almost completely allocated in Canada's three largest markets and so
the launch of new stations is very difficult to do from a technical POV.
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
Falcon; You see, if people make an investment
in something, you have to pay them for their effort. People don't build
things to give away.
Well, at least not the smart people.
You can watch anything you like, if you pay the people who own it.
"Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
news:%WvIa.240212$ro6.6325229@no-spam
> Why in Kiratara's name can the CRTC make it illegal for me to recieve
> signals being braodcast through my house? The way I figure it, as long as
> something is broadcast to me I should be able to recieve that signal.
From
> there, it is data and I should be able to do whatever I want with it. The
> ridiculous concept of "owning" a signal from a satallite is ludicrous for
> that reason.
>
> Also, if I so desire, I see no reason why I should be prevented from
writing
> to and reading from a SMART card or prevented from creating or modifying
> electrical devices for personal use.
>
> Another point: If somebody runs a utility line on my property, how can
they
> tell me I am not allowed to draw the utility from it? Basically that is
> saying "I shall dig up your dirt and lay this cable" or "I will set this
> cable on your lawn", but also "... You are prohibited from touching it,
> regardless of the fact that I have left it on your property." The same
goes
> for signals broadcast from cellular phones. If somebody wants to prevent
me
> from accessing data that is accessible to me, they need to encrypt it or
> just live with the fact that I can recieve it too.
>
> "Erik Trammel" <trammel@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EF1FFA2.50105@no-spam
> > Because the Liberal government's CRTC wants to promote
> > Canadian Nationalism and socialism, it prevents Canadians
> > from seeing certain American TV networks hoping that the
> > people will be forced to watch the CBC and other Canadian
> > networks and local channels sanctioned by the CRTC.
> >
> > But this policy is backfiring in that a black market in
> > pirating American network signals is thriving. It is estimated that
> > this is costing the Canadian government and its TV cable and
> > satellite companies about $400 million a year at least. And the
> > problem is growing.
> >
> > Thus the article* in today's National Post, "Cable firms seek to
> > offer popular U.S. channels". The article states that an estimated
> > 750,000 Canadians have bought illegal satellite dishes to receive
> > U.S. and other foreign programming directly. If this is true then
> > the $400 million a year loss is probably substantially understated.
> >
> > I recall that a few years ago to receive
> > pirated signals one had to have a
> > special dish and receiver-descrambler which was quite costly, well
> > over $1000 dollars. The signals had to be descrambled with a different
> > code bi-weekly or even weekly as the transmission codes were constantly
> > changed. The fee for this service to the provider was also a few hundred
> > dollars a year.
> >
> > Canada's TV cable and satellite companies have recently been running
> > advertisements accusing Canadians watching illegal TV of theft. This
> > is true, but it is costly theft for the offenders.
> > The Canadian government with its
> > CRTC could easily put a stop to this
> > piracy by removing its restrictions on American and foreign programming.
> > Canadian cable and satellite TV companies would benefit financially as
> > would the government in increased revenues.
> >
> >
>
http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=BDD78A43-90FB-4F71-AD49-664B7
> AA026A8
> >
> >
>
>
<nshinede@no-spam> wrote:
> Eric; More of your liberal dezinformatsia?
>
> FOX News is about to put CNN, ABC, et. al. out of business! Much more
> informative and popular than all the rest put together, simply because it is
> TRUTHFUL.
> You liberals should try truth sometimes. Reality. It works.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with my post or this thread, you
poo-munching fudge-packer.
Also - you are a coward, and probably have no life outside the monitor
you stare into all day every day.
I'd feel sorry for you, but actually I don't give a shit.
Luv n kisses,
Eric
Erik; really, sonny! Just more liberal childishness. Your a pitiful little
fella, hu?
"Ericİ" <eschild@no-spam> wrote in message
news:7632539d.0306261905.5b3b3d9c@no-spam
> <nshinede@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Eric; More of your liberal dezinformatsia?
> >
> > FOX News is about to put CNN, ABC, et. al. out of business! Much more
> > informative and popular than all the rest put together, simply because
it is
> > TRUTHFUL.
>
> > You liberals should try truth sometimes. Reality. It works.
>
> Nothing you wrote has anything to do with my post or this thread, you
> poo-munching fudge-packer.
>
> Also - you are a coward, and probably have no life outside the monitor
> you stare into all day every day.
>
> I'd feel sorry for you, but actually I don't give a shit.
>
> Luv n kisses,
>
> Eric
Of course. And the allocation is just another reason not to scrap the band.
Especially since we already have the technology to broadcast even above
250Ghz. and there are some rather underutilised bands desegnated things
like "Astronomical" that could instead be used for other things - however
these are far under the AM band so they might not be all that useful.
"Ian King" <iankingREMOVETHIS@no-spam> wrote in message
news:wIQJa.269393$ro6.7015390@no-spam
> "Falcon Kirtarania" <cmomot@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:IlQJa.296012$Vi5.7864308@no-spam
> > Then why can't they just expand or simply utilise that band? Digital
> > signal, unlike FM, apparently requires far less bandwidth due to its
> lesser
> > variations in frequency.
>
> The space above arounf the FM broadcast band is already spoken for, while
> the new band will be twice the width of the FM band allowing for far more
> signals to be carried in a single area, which means more room for
specialty
> stations, community broadcasters, third-language stations, et cetera. The
FM
> band is almost completely allocated in Canada's three largest markets and
so
> the launch of new stations is very difficult to do from a technical POV.
>
> --
> ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
> more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
>
>