R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
| Intreresting new filing in the Throttling case...
»www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2008/···5153.htm
The French Union, from the looks of it, is calling the CRTC out on not having judge the entire case...
Could be interesting!
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
|
|
melak
Premium
join:2006-06-17
Fergus, ON | not to sound dumb, especially since we live in an bilingual country, but my French is very poor, anyone care to translate to English? |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
 ·Colbanet
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to R0CKY
They're basically saying that they alleged that Bell was violating a bunch of parts of the telecommunications act, and that the CRTC ruling didn't address that. So they're demanding that the CRTC make a ruling on if Bell violated those parts of the act. |
|
gave up
@videotron.ca | reply to R0CKY
Actualy i'm surprised CAIP hasn't submitted something similar by now also.
Its as if CAIP just gave up and thats that. |
|
Sempronius
join:2008-09-18
Toronto, ON
| Intreresting new filing in the Throttling case...
Article translated into English
6226, rue Saint-Hubert
Montreal (Quebec) H2S 2M2 Canada
T (514) 521 6820 - SF 1 888 521 6820
F (514) 521 0736
C union@consommateur.qc.ca
Www.consommateur.qc.ca W / union
Montreal, 24 November 2008
Robert A. Morin
Secretary-General
Council of the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N2
Subject: Continuation of the Motion of the Union of consumers under Part VIIUtilisation
Bell's Deep Packet Inspection and deliberate deterioration Service
Internet access
Sir,
On 24 April 2008, Consumers' Union has submitted a request under Part VII on Bell's use of "deep packet inspection", and the deterioration of deliberate Internet access service.
Our request was subscribers of Internet services provided by Bell, who are victims of the use of this technology "Deep packet inspection", as well as supporting the request the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP below) against Bell.
On 20 November 2008, the CRTC released its decision on the request of CAIP However, to date the Council has rendered any decision on the complaint filed by
Consumers' Union. The Center for Advocacy in his speech
7 July 2008, fell well that our request was a separate, and that the Council had provided no response regarding this requête.1
Our complaint alleges several violations of the policy objectives of Canadian telecommunications; see paragraph 5 of our complaint: "The Union of Consumers believes that the actions of Bell deliberately slows the service of its subscribers on the basis of the use of certain technologies to transfer data, are effective of:
a) voluntarily limit access by all Canadians to services
Telecommunications safe, affordable, and quality and this in violation of Article 7 b) of the Act
on telecommunications;
b) restrict the free market as regards the provision of
telecommunications, and in violation of Article 7 f) of the Telecommunications Act;
c) harm to innovation in the field of telecommunications by targeting certain
technology in violation of Article 7 g) of the Act
1 Intervention Center for Advocacy available at
»www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/frn/2008/···5153.htm
d) undermining the privacy of individuals, and in violation of Article 7 i) of the Act
telecommunications;
e) contravene the provisions of Article 36 of the Telecommunications Act, with
violate the principle of neutrality regarding the content of telecommunications. "
In paragraph 9 of our request, we should spell out that the practices of Bell were detrimental to subscribers of Internet services from Bell: "The Consumers' Union alleges that Bell practices are detrimental to its own subscribers to access service High speed Internet subscribers and Internet access services High Speed offered by companies that use its network. "
Furthermore, in our conclusions, we ask the Council to recognize the violation by Bell of paragraphs b), f), g) and i) of Article 7 of the Telecommunications Act, as well as Article 36 of the Act.
On reading this, we ask the Council to make a decision on our request under Part VII.
Hoping all comply, please, sir, to accept the expression of our distinguished sentiments.
Marcel Boucher
Head of Legal Affairs
Me Anthony Hémond
Political analyst and regulation
in telecommunications, broadcasting,
And private Infoway Life |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
| reply to gave up
Re: Intreresting new filing in the Throttling case...
said by gave up :
Actualy i'm surprised CAIP hasn't submitted something similar by now also.
Its as if CAIP just gave up and thats that.
The problem is a couple things right now with the CAIP situation. They're trying to figure out if it's better to keep moving on and attack the next steps, or if we try and come back at things. Additionally, CAIP doesn't have money, so all participants have to agree to do certain things to spend, ya-da-ya-da.... It's a slow moving process as a result! 
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
|
|
Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| said by R0CKY  :The problem is a couple things right now with the CAIP situation. They're trying to figure out if it's better to keep moving on and attack the next steps, or if we try and come back at things. Additionally, CAIP doesn't have money, so all participants have to agree to do certain things to spend, ya-da-ya-da.... It's a slow moving process as a result! Ask your lawyers to spend 1-2 hours reading the relevant Criminal Code sections. If they think that there is a case then all you need is an interested Crown attorney. If one gets interested enough then the Crown does all the heavy lifting. |
|
Dobey Gillis
@bell.ca | reply to R0CKY
Will this be submitted on its own merit or will this be included in the new submissions for the July summit? |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
| reply to Maynard G Krebs
said by Maynard G Krebs :said by R0CKY :The problem is a couple things right now with the CAIP situation. They're trying to figure out if it's better to keep moving on and attack the next steps, or if we try and come back at things. Additionally, CAIP doesn't have money, so all participants have to agree to do certain things to spend, ya-da-ya-da.... It's a slow moving process as a result! Ask your lawyers to spend 1-2 hours reading the relevant Criminal Code sections. If they think that there is a case then all you need is an interested Crown attorney. If one gets interested enough then the Crown does all the heavy lifting. Problem is the CRTC changes everything from a legal perspective as Telecom is ruled/regulated differently. It would almost require action against the CRTC rather than Bell to force change due to the obvious abuse by Bell being allowed. In either case I'm sure we're not done with the subject....not even close!
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
|
|
mr_hexen
join:2007-08-02
Brampton, ON | reply to R0CKY
i was also thinking this...
I thought i read in one of the CRTC's early comments they outlined a bunch of items in question.
on Nov 20, 2008 they ruled on one?
..... |
|
yes saw that
@videotron.ca
| reply to R0CKY
said by R0CKY :Additionally, CAIP doesn't have money, so all participants have to agree to do certain things to spend, ya-da-ya-da.... yes, that was my first guess a week or so ago. |
|
Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| reply to R0CKY
said by R0CKY : Problem is the CRTC changes everything from a legal perspective as Telecom is ruled/regulated differently. It would almost require action against the CRTC rather than Bell to force change due to the obvious abuse by Bell being allowed. In either case I'm sure we're not done with the subject....not even close! Sections 326, 327, 328, 342, 430 and generally Section 330 all seem to apply, and portions would apply irrespective of CRTC rules.
These sections of the Criminal Code already allow for lawful network management. It isn't the role of the CRTC to 'pardon' Bell for violations of the Criminal Code. It is for the courts to decide. |
|
globus999
join:2008-05-15
| reply to R0CKY
said by R0CKY :said by gave up :
Actualy i'm surprised CAIP hasn't submitted something similar by now also.
Its as if CAIP just gave up and thats that.
Additionally, CAIP doesn't have money, so all participants have to agree to do certain things to spend, ya-da-ya-da.... It's a slow moving process as a result! Here we go again. Look, this is a no-brainer. Just involve the people. Your customers. Their customers. As many customers as possible. Look grashopper, use the force.... of the e-mail! E-mail them. Provide a webpage with a boilerplate letter to the "authorities" that matter. Let the people trigger it. Repeat until victourious. Simple, plain, dirt-cheap. What is NOT to like?  |
|
WeAreAnonymous
@cia.com
| He's right! Put up a website, and lead people to it.
Hell, people (myself included), were able to RickRoll the world, by getting Rick Astley close to 1 billion votes to win the Best Act Ever award at the MTV EMA's this past month. - see »www.bestactever.com
The word just needs to get out, and the ease of petitioning needs to be there.
Get the chainmails goin, it's for a worthy cause! |
|
j3richo
join:2007-12-08
Gatineau, QC
·Acanac
 ·Videotron
| reply to R0CKY
I'm glad to see this submission, this was one of the things I was very confused about in the CRTC decision, the fillings by CAIP and others had a bunch of issues to be addressed and it seems everything was ignored, the CRTC just addressed whether Bell was giving their own service an unfair advantage.
The CRTC is trying to spin this into saying their decision was only on whether Bell was discriminatory but this was a very minor point raised by CAIP and others, the real issue is whether Bell has a right to manipulate data that doesn't belong to them and whether they really had congestion on their network. It seems to me that the CRTC was looking for a way to deliver a favourable ruling to Bell and this was the only way to do it |
|
milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H2Z
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to R0CKY
said by R0CKY :Problem is the CRTC changes everything from a legal perspective as Telecom is ruled/regulated differently. It would almost require action against the CRTC rather than Bell to force change due to the obvious abuse by Bell being allowed. That's what the courts are for. They have the power to alter or override any decisions made by the CRTC. Contrary to popular belief, the CRTC is far from omnipotent. |
|
El Quintron
Could you spare a consulting gig?
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON | reply to R0CKY
This is good news, leave it to the french to keep kicking up a fuss!
J'aime bien ces nouvelles |
|
k6richar
join:2008-06-17
Kitchener, ON | reply to R0CKY
If the CRTC completely ignored the CAIP (never told them about delays, etc) what response can the french union expect to get |
|
