| reply to sbrook
Telus backtracks, says small ISPs should also pay for throttling "Telus Corp. has reversed course in demanding that Bell Canada Inc. pay all the costs of the CRTC's investigation into that company's internet throttling practice, now saying that small service providers involved in the dispute should also have to chip in..."
»www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008···lus.html |
|
| Re: Telus backtracks, says small ISPs should also pay for thrott I don't know if thats actually what they are saying.
Telus really confuses things.
"A spokesman for Telus did not immediately return a request for comment."
"Tom Copeland, president of CAIP, said Telus likely reversed its position after having a conversation with Bell."
I'll wait and see Telus's comment to see what they really meant.
Telus Didn't clarify their point.
They do clearly blame Bell as the sole instigator of the proceeding.
They do clearly say Bell should pay.
The second letter states:
"The direct parties in this proceeding are both CAIP and Bell Canada".
They are only clarifying which two parties are the direct parties. Not who instigated this. Not who should pay this.
But the wording is kind of funny on the second filing, thats a given.
Did Telus flip-flop?
Or are they saying that *if* the CRTC make the involved parties share costs, then they should do so on only these two parties, "in such manner that the Commission deems to be justified in the circumstances."
Did they really flip-flop on their position on the first letter?
I don't read it as a definative yes they did do a 100% reversal.
and to reitterate:
"A spokesman for Telus did not immediately return a request for comment."
This was also discussed last week here:
»Re: CRTC Updates...
I too seen a flip-flop at first. But is this really what it is?
I think it needs to be clarified. |
|
| Let's look at this for a moment, okay...In the first snippet, Telus is supporting consumer groups and small service providers. Telus even goes so far as to say that because Bell started the whole argument over throttling, the company should be liable for the costs.
In the second snippet... In a July submission to the CRTC, Telus clearly supports Bell on the throttling issue and makes clear in no uncertain terms that the CRTC's decision should not be extended to Telus, based on Telus' claim that they do not throttle. In essence, Telus is asking that the CRTC's decision over throttling not be extended to Telus. I smell a rat...
In Yesterday's news article (3rd snippet), Telus did a complete turn-about, now saying that small service providers involved in the dispute should also have to chip in. But wait a minute... go back and look at the first snippet and read the first sentence...Telus supports consumer groups and small service providers... A contradiction in terms. I should say.
The last snippet really is said with a deceitful tongue. Telus most certainly has been a central party in the CRTC's probe from the very beginning. Clearly, Telus does not want to face the wrath of the CRTC for any wrong-doing on their part for possible throttling. Telus has contradicted themselves on every angle right from the very beginning. |
|
|
|
 HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:11 | There is a reason why the call it Bellus. They're screwing each other in the janitor closet. 
--
GO LEAFS GO! |
|
