 R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
3 edits | reply to ftp1020
Re: CRTC Updates... »www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/···5153.htm
Looks like Telus chimed in! |
|
| Ah yes buddies sticking up for each other. And one saying, hey! hope to hell we don't have to pay anything, its all their fault.
Wouldn't surprise me if cisco chimed in. |
|
R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | Hmm.... actually... Telus is saying Bell is solely responsible.
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
 AngeloThe Network GuyPremium
join:2002-06-18
1 edit | said by R0CKY:Hmm.... actually... Telus is saying Bell is solely responsible. i'm shocked Telus went with this stance |
|
| reply to R0CKY
I only read one filing... just noticed the other and will read it now...
telus said: "The direct parties in this proceeding are both CAIP and Bell Canada. As a result, TELUS submits that any cost awards in relation to this proceeding should be allocated between those two parties"
I don't read that as being soley Bell.
I read that as, costs awards are the responsibility of both CAIP and Bell. |
|
R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | said by readin other now :
I only read one filing... just noticed the other and will read it now...
telus said: "The direct parties in this proceeding are both CAIP and Bell Canada. As a result, TELUS submits that any cost awards in relation to this proceeding should be allocated between those two parties"
I don't read that as being soley Bell.
I read that as, costs awards are the responsibility of both CAIP and Bell.
Read #2... »www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/20···2665.pdf
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
| reply to R0CKY
Just read the 2nd one and you are right. Wow unexpected.
But in the last filing they seem to flip-flop on what the first filing said.
Maybe I misunderstand the last filing?
What do you make of it.
First filing:
Clearly they lay blame on Bell
Clearly they lay liability for costs on Bell
2nd filing:
Clearly they lay cost awards on the shoulders of BOTH Bell and CAIP.
What am I misinterpeting here? |
|
| reply to Angelo
Maybe trying to set a precidence, if they should decide to pull something similar with TSI in the west. |
|
|
|
R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | reply to just read
said by just read :
Just read the 2nd one and you are right. Wow unexpected.
But in the last filing they seem to flip-flop on what the first filing said.
Maybe I misunderstand the last filing?
What do you make of it.
First filing:
Clearly they lay blame on Bell
Clearly they lay liability for costs on Bell
2nd filing:
Clearly they lay cost awards on the shoulders of BOTH Bell and CAIP.
What am I misinterpeting here?
Thinking in their last submission they want to make clear that they are not responsible for any costs and that should there be any that it should be either Bell or CAIP, whichever the CRTC decides.
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc. |
|
| ah ok. makes sense.
/me dense. |
|
R0CKYTSI RockyPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
1 edit | LOL... nah... It's written in a weird way! |
|
| you're so politically correct  |
|
