TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: U.N. Broadcasting Treaty Talks Suffer Setback

Re: U.N. Broadcasting Treaty Talks Suffer Setback
Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:31:38 -0700

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There seems to be some misunderstanding,
> IMO, over the meaning and nature of 'broadcasting'. Broadcasting, by
> its nature, is supposed to be for _everyone_ (who wishes to do so) to
> listen to. How can there be 'piracy' of a broadcasting signal? I
> guess I am just curious on this point. There are radio signals which
> no one, except for its sender and recipient are supposed to overhear
> or retransmit. 'Broadcasts' are not one of these classes. PAT]

The content itself could represent piracy. Are you familiar with the
concept of pirate copies of recording media?

Or their frequency and/or power might violate regulations. There is a
Wikipedia article at:

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: but the 'frequency or power' would not
be defined as 'piracy' would it, even if the frequency was improper or
the power excessive? 'Broadcasting' means 'the radio signals I am
producing under authorization are for _anyone_ to listen to or use to
their advantage.' For example, a sale in a store, or a weather report
or a news report. The 'broadcaster' definitly wants 'the public' to
listen to him or do what he instructs them to do. Or was 'broadcasting'
the incorrect term to be used? Many kinds of radio signals are not
for the general public and not intended to be used to the advantage of
any third party listeners, i.e. police transmisions. PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Mr Joseph Singer: "Re: We've Come So Far ..."
Go to Previous message: Rick Merrill: "Re: U.S. Air Force Dislikes Google Earth Capability"
May be in reply to: Reuters News Wire: "U.N. Broadcasting Treaty Talks Suffer Setback"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page