Re: U.N. Broadcasting Treaty Talks Suffer Setback

[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:

formatting link
[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]

Reply to
panoptes
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.