Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!ntt From: ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) Newsgroups: net.misc,can.general Subject: Re: Canada's Tradition as a Pioneer in Communications Technology Message-ID: <797@dciem.UUCP> Date: Wed, 21-Mar-84 16:32:49 EST Article-I.D.: dciem.797 Posted: Wed Mar 21 16:32:49 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 22-Mar-84 13:25:06 EST References: <7255@watmath.UUCP>, <608@hcr.UUCP> Organization: NTT Systems Inc., Toronto, Canada Lines: 55 Chris Retterath (hcr!chrisr) writes: Maybe we've gone too far ahead. In Canada, the broadcast medium is "public property", which translates to the CRTC applying heavy handed government controls on every aspect of the business. Getting a license to transmit is hard enough ... It appears that having a license means that the CRTC must approve everything you broadcast. Is this meant to suggest that anybody who wants to should be able to operate a transmitter? The electromagnetic spectrum is a strictly limited resource, and it's just as well that most countries not only regulate transmissions within their borders but also ensure that these transmissions do not interfere with other countries. The mass broadcast industry could never have developed in an chaotic environment of unregulated frequencies, and would be severely damaged if the rules were removed now. (Whether this would be a good thing or not is left as an exercise for the reader-- but consider the Communist countries where the border rules do not apply.) I won't even go into the horror stories about "Canadian content" ... I'm just glad that I live near enough to the U.S. border to pick up U.S. radio and television stations. Same here. Now if my cable company was allowed to bring me those U.S. shows in versions that don't have minutes cut out for extra commercials...* oh well, at least I can buy an aerial if I want. Anyway, I do agree that the CRTC is heavy-handed, and, what's worse, erratic. And the repeated use over many years of broadcast** regulations by governments*** for national- istic ends is abhorrent. (Here's an example from over 30 years ago: Toronto radio station CFRB, which had been ordered to leave the CBS network when the national radio network CBC was formed, was broadcasting on 860. One day the government simply informed them that 860 was wanted for a SECOND CBC station in Toronto and, after a certain date, CFRB would henceforth use the inferior frequency 1010.) Among his or her examples of undesirable government interference in communications, Chris gives: ... stereo AM is coming in at a snail's pace ... Well, I would rather that stereo AM had not appeared at all. As I said, the spectrum is a limited resource, and I would rather see more stations added than stations being allowed a wider bandwidth. Mark Brader *If a local station shows the same show at the same time, no matter how much it is cut, the cable company is obliged to substitute the local channel for the foreign one at the request of the local station. These cuts typically amount to 2 minutes per hour. **Not to mention air travel. ***Both parties are at fault. At least, there were no significant changes during the Progressive Conservative government of 1979-80.