BETS-1 as described in John's link is not what I had in mind when I declared support for BETS-1 as the model for improving 15.239.
The CRTS's restrictions on programming are completely stifling.
4. Originates all programming.
Ouch! That's not the way we run a radio station... we intersperse a lot of material produced by others, including music. In Canada under BETS-1 we'd have to originate our own music.
5. No rebroadcast of the programming of another station.
That would cut off Atrain's Rant, Tim's Headlines and Barry & Stephanie's "The Little Things."
6. No religious or political programming.
Well, what can an atheist talk about? Atheists are non-religious, but they need to talk about religion to prove how bad it is.
Donald Trump would go ignored because he's political and we would be muffled, desperate to talk about his latest nonsense.
7. Does not broadcast same message on more than one transmitter.
Does that mean simultaneously? Or, does it also rule out delayed recordings played some other time on other transmitters.
It's a bad deal. Too Canadian for me.
This is the article that inspired me to inquire further about BETS with Industry Canada and others, as I thought some of the assertions were incorrect. I haven't heard back from Industry Canada yet (I sent them an e-mail asking them to clarify the position that you need a Radio Station License for a BETS-1 broadcast undertaking.
The other stuff about the CRTC is correct. Re #4 & 5 - they just don't want you to link into a Sirius satellite feed, as an example, and rebroadcast it. If you've gotten ATrain's rant, for example, and placed it on your computer, you're originating it, and that would be OK. #6 - that's just being Canadian, eh? They don't want to offend anyone. Seriously, that would be difficult to enforce, because virtually everything is either politics or religion in different guises. #7 means that you can't have two or more transmitters with a feed from a single source. It doesn't stop you from having identical programming on two different sources (say computers) and feeding one with each. It does stop you from flooding an area with transmitters and sending the audio from a single computer via the Internet or some other form of link.
http://www.decadetransmitters.com/en/radio-licences.htm
This link gives a rundown of what needs licences and what doesn't in Canada and the USA based on transmitter and application.
Decade is a registered business with Industry Canada and these facts on radio licences are on the website. I think Michael Carrier has a vested interest in an honest business and not to mislead customers because if anyone got into trouble with wrong information using their products it would come back to him and would get him into trouble. I'm sure since this company is registered on Industry Canada's site, Industry Canada knows just what information is on Decade's site. In the 25 years they have been in business NO ONE has ever been told they can't use the MS100 and recently the CM-10 without a licence. The technical certificate is your "licence"
I tend to look at it this way.....we are just consumers. We really don't have to know technicalities, 250uV/m, 1000uV/M what ever.....and we don't have to be delging into government documents, FCC or Industry Canada.
For example: We are all familiar with the talking house AM transmitter...right? Well, The company says this meets all rules, is certified that it does, and the company says you need NO licence to have and operate this....they have gone through the hoops to do whatever behind the scenes to offer a product you can use licence free without worry and you trust them on that. It wouldn't be in their interest if they're running an honest business to lie to you and have you get into trouble. You trust them, that they have done all the research, and what they say is true.
And what Michael also told me made me think of something else that would be a similar example.
Recently 3 girls were stopped by police in Kitchener Ontario for riding their bikes toppless in a neighborhood and were told "you can't do this, you must put shirts on" but it's not against the law in Ontario to go toppless! You'd think the cops would know the law!....Do you think beuarocrats in Government are different?
Also if something is not written than you assume it's not illegal....for example: nothing in the highway traffic act says you must wear shoes when driving...so I can assume from that, barefeet when driving is not illegal even though it's not specifically stated.
You see my logic here?
If I had never been on this forum or had been away and never seen these posts on Industry Canada and radio licences I would have been better off and not get aggravated. Maybe I shouldn't be on these forums and save myself agravation.
I like communicating with fellow hobbiests but I'm done with this subject of Industry Canada and radio licences. Won't comment or post anything more about it.
Check the link at the top and if it doesn't work go to Decade Transmitters web site, at top move mouse to products, you will see radio licences, and click on that.
Mark
Mark posted (in part) I tend to look at it this way.....we are just consumers. We really don't have to know technicalities, 250uV/m, 1000uV/M what ever.....and we don't have to be delging into government documents, FCC or Industry Canada.
Regardless of that, operators of unlicensed systems that are non-compliant with applicable law subject themselves to legal action by the legal enforcers who measure and regulate the performance of such unlicensed systems.
Of course the operators of some unlicensed setups may have little/no concern about their compliance with such legalities when using "certified" transmitters.
But that belief will not protect them from FCC action if they are non-compliant.
Rich's "Carrying On" Post # 5 says something in toto.
What I'm saying is that the entire posting in its totality makes two opposing but simultaneously true points, both true at the same time.
What Mark is quoted as having said is true and reflects real life.
What Rich says by way of further comment is true and reflects the abstract fabricated world of enforcement bureaucracy.
What Rich says by way of further comment is true and reflects the abstract fabricated world of enforcement bureaucracy.
Mr Blare: Kindly distinguish and explain the technical differences you perceive between the earlier posts in this thread by Mark, and me.
Mr. Rich asks: Mr Blare: "Kindly distinguish and explain the technical differences you perceive between the earlier posts in this thread by Mark, and me."
My Post # 6 responds entirely and solely to your Post # 5, and I cannot find any earlier posts by you in this thread for purposes of distinquishing and explaining.