oh LOOK
@videotron.ca
| reply to oh LOOK
Re: CRTC Public Hearings on Throttling
In addition to The Quebec Union des consommateurs and PIAC's request to release information, These parties have also filed requests for disclosure:
the Campaign for Democratic Media (filed by CIPPIC),
the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, and
CAIP (the Canadian Association of Internet Providers). |
|
oh LOOK
@videotron.ca | All the new filings are now online (CAIP included). |
|
jfmezei_anon
@vaxination.ca
| I received today a responce from my "Freedom of Information" request to the CRTC.
I was given printouts of powerpoint presentations which apparently are the documents presented to the council by the analysts.
You know all the pejorative qualifiers associated with "Powerpoint presentations" ? Well, they apply to this.
Of course, the slides coveraing whether bell was breaking the telecom act were blanked out.
More importatly, there is NO mention of any subissions by anyone other than CAIP or BELL. So everyone else who spent time making submissions: you wasted your time.
CAIP should **NOT** have made a submission and forced a different process by having multiple independant submissions. (Especially since CAIP handed the decision over to Bell for an easy wil with its last submission).
BTW, The CRTC is truly convinced that Bell simply *delays* packets. Even though my submission was the only one to discuss how the throttling was done (Bell drops over 20% of packets), the CRTC paparently got the "delays packets" from some undisclosed source since Bell didn't mention how it thorttled in any of its submissions. AKA: Bell had a productive golf game with some CRTC folks where Bell was able to brainwahs them into thinking this.
Why is it important ? Accepting the false premise that Bell just delays packets makes it easy for the CRTC to avoid the obvious problems of throttling and rule in favour of throttling since it sees it as a benign action. |
|
Peerier
@teksavvy.com
| JF: nice uncovering there.
Any idea who the analyst(s) were?
Isn't it possible to appeal the CRTC's redactions on whether Bell was breaking the telecom act to the Office of the Information Commissioner to get them to force the release of the info?
Also, perhaps another FOI request on the selection process/criteria/payments for the analysts (or were they internal?) |
|
Sunny squirrel
@vaxination.ca
| No idea who the analysts were. But it is clear that the process considered only the CAIP and Bell submissions. And the powerpoint "points" are not technical in nature.
No discussion of protocol. No indication whatsoevere that they understand the internet or difference between PPPoE, IP, TCP etc.
From what I have been told, they typically for non-important dossiers just make a powerpoint presentation and provide verbal explanations to the council. There is no available record of verbal discussion. (I would assume that there would be a secretary taking minutes of the meeting, but this is not released under access to info act.)
Should there be a change of government, the new minister in charge of the CRTC has full access to all that stuff and could decide to make it public with some restrictions. |
|
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON | reply to jfmezei_anon
Leak it to the press JF. We need to expose Bell and the CRTC for what they really are. |
|
An0nym0us
| Nothing to 'leak,' just give it to them  |
|
jfmezei_anon
@vaxination.ca
| reply to jfmezei_anon
»ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/0901···internet
Article about how Google intentds to provide a service where anyone can test whether their ISP is discriminating line performance based on application/content. (aka throttling). |
|
