Last month, I told you about the outcome of the civil suit filed by Expressvu and other Canadian programmers in an attempt to halt the sale of DSS systems in Canada. As I explained, this is a rather hollow attempt to intimidate satellite distributors and dealers into selling systems which are more expensive, with higher programming costs and far less choice, all under the guise of protecting our "cultural identity"

Well, just after press time last month, the first wave of propaganda was directed at Canadian satellite retailers. It came in the form of a cease and desist letter sent by an Ontario law firm representing ExpressVu. The letter begins with "We are writing to you, and other consumer electronics retailers, with respect to recent developments concerning Canadian broadcasting law, and particularly the broadcast of direct-to-home (DTH) satellite...". Let's stop right here. This is really all we need to see in order to properly "interpret" the real legal content of this letter.

Somehow, this arrogant group of self- righteous zealots, headed up by the ring-leader Luther Haave, believe that they have changed the law!!

First and foremost, let us remember that we have solutely no concern for "broadcasting law". We are doing no broadcasting. This is where I believe the line can be drawn in the sand, as to what the government can and cannot regulate with respect to the airwaves which we all own. Certainly for the purpose of maintaining "order" in the airvaves, to prevent "jamming" and other unwanted or conflicting signals, the government has the right to regulate broadcasting. To not do so would mean anyone could transmit anything, anytime, on any frequency they chose. This would create utter chaos and probably result in very little useful information actually being successfully transmitted and received. So, it is very logical and well reasoned to allow broadcasting to be "regulated". I suppose it could even be argued that the arbitrary methods used by the CRTC to regulate broadcasting based on content could also be reasonable, although I personally do not agree.

Now, on the other hand, we will look at the activity of simply receiving a signal, as opposed to broadcasting it. None of the arguments concerning "law and order" of the public air- waves really can apply to reception, as it is a one-way activity and is purely passive in nature. The airwaves themselves are in no way altered, or re-transmitted and no one is denied access or ownership to property. So what arguments can be used to support regulating reception?

Very few. Even in the realm of radio broadcasting, it is clear there is little regulation of reception, as illustrated by the sale and use of scanners, and other devices which allow reception and monitoring of all types of signals.

In fact, the Radiocommunications Act makes it quite clear that people are entitled to "passively" receive these signals. I say passively, because while the Act does not restrict reception, it does prohibit divulging or making use of any information. For example, you may have a scanner which picks up your neighbors cordless phone. He happens to be the CEO of a very big company, which is in the process of taking over another smaller company. You hear this while monitoring his phone calls.

The government says this is OK. But, if you ran to your stock-brokerto make purchases based on this information, or even so much as told someone else about it, this is prohibited.

I believe this type of restriction could logically be applied to television signals. For example, to be a simple home dish owner, receiving and watching signals in the privacy of your home should be completely unrestricted. On the other hand, commercial use of the signals in any way, such as in a hotel or bar, or even re-transmiming it should be illegal. You should not be entitled to gain anything from signals which you do not pay anything for. I am also not suggesting that you should be allowed to decode signals for which you should be paying subscriptions for. I am referring strictly to signals which originate outside of Canada, and which are not available for subscription here.

Now, this brings us back to our original topic. This group believes that since the CRTC has the right to regulate what THEY broadcast, you should have no choice but to watch what they have to offer. This is where thejurisdiction of the CRTC begins to interfere with our constitutional rights, if you believe there is a right to regulate reception. I do not. I think the outcomes ofall the criminal cases have said that quite loud and clear. I also think that this cease and desist letter, and the recent publicity the plaintiffs have received, is going to be their high point. They have nowhere to go but down.

Imagine the arrogance of someone like Luther Haave, complaining about his rights being infringed, when his company does not even offer a system yet! Does he even realize that the Radiocommunications Act does require that distributors must make their signal "readily available" before they can even consider it being on offence to decode it without payment? In this case, they don't even have a signal! Only a piece of paper from the CRTC saying they could offer one, if they got off their asses and did something. If Mr. Haave directed as much time ane energy into creating a viable alternative, as he does whining and crying foul about his rights being violated, he might actually have a produc Canadians would want to buy.

ExpressVu is set to launch soon. StarChoice as already up and running. Are people flocking in to buy the systems? Unfortunately not, due to the poor choice of programming. This will spell their demise. With DirecTV just now saying they are breaking even at 3 million subscribers you can be sure the Canadian operations will never reach a sustainable subscription base with the current programming offerings. Perhaps ExpressVu will be able to operate for a long time at a loss due to it's large financial backing and their close association with the cable television industry. Cable companies would gladly subsidize a DTH operation, so long as they do not offer anything which would lure their cable subscribers away. And that really is the big conspiracy here. So long as there is nothing more attractive, either financially or programming wise, people will simply stay on cable. That is quite fine with Luther, since his Allarcom really makes alot more money off cable, doing less than they have to do to make money from a DTH enterprise. So, the DTH will only appeal to those without access to cable, and that removes the threat of satellite to the cable industIy.

In any event, many of you are wondering what to do if you received this cease and desist letter. My advice? File it, respond to it, rip it up, burn it, create a religious sacrifice out of it, jump on it, kick it, do anything else to it.....but don't take it seriously.

It is nothing more than a national joke, perhaps a disgrace.