Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| reply to R0CKY
Re: Intreresting new filing in the Throttling case...
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. |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON
| 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 )
|
|
Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| 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. |
|
milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H3B
 ·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. |
|
