 gdogg
join:2006-02-06
39123 | reply to heynow123
Re: Bell appeals CRTC decision True heynow123
But, quality , competively priced internet shouldn't be something only available to those who are smart and look at all there options |
|
 andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to Edgar_man_boy
Wonder what happens if they don't file new tarrifs by tomorrow like they are supposed to.I could see it being delayed if they filed a dispute with the crtc but they didn't they went to cabinet.As far as I can tell they still have to file by tomorrow unless there is something filed that the crtc hasn't posted. |
|
shepd
join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Distributel
| reply to heynow123
said by heynow123:Regardless of what bell offers. If your smart and know your options. Your going to choose Teksavvy, since we know they are always working for us on this subject. Like someone said Rocky isn't going to give up. I would rather them keep their 5 and 6 Meg profiles that are uncapped, unthrottled with MLPPP. Than accept new profiles and end up with bell's crappy caps. But from what I have read Rocky has a tricks plans up his sleeve. I can't wait to find out they are. Screw Bell, their time is starting to run out. It's only a matter of time before Teksavvy becomes the new big/little guy. Trying to keep an old contract with Bell is what killed off iStop. iStop had an old contract with Bell for HSA which had a price low enough they could offer business HSA for $99 a month.
Bell believed they were entitled to "upgrade" the contract to the new pricing level (*much* higher) and iStop fought them. iStop throttled payment to Bell to the old contract price and, according to Bell, racked up millions of dollars in arrears over the several years Bell dragged out the fight. Eventually the house of cards fell, Bell pulled their line for a few days, and the fallout was iStop going bust. I believe shortly before they went bust the CRTC ruled in Bell's favour.
If TSi wants to fight Bell like that, they would do well to talk to Ralph...  |
|
shepd
join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Distributel
| reply to andyb
said by andyb:Wonder what happens if they don't file new tarrifs by tomorrow like they are supposed to.I could see it being delayed if they filed a dispute with the crtc but they didn't they went to cabinet.As far as I can tell they still have to file by tomorrow unless there is something filed that the crtc hasn't posted. ISPs can file disputes with the CRTC regarding it. How long did it take the CRTC to rule on DPI? There's your answer. |
|
|
|
andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 | I know they can file disputes and that it would delay things but as I said they havent filed a dispute with the crtc(I didn't find one) they went above thier heads so they should still be filing new tarrifs. |
|
 El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
·TekSavvy DSL
 ·voip.ms
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to Edgar_man_boy
I never really thought Bell would have such a colossal sense of entitlement that they could go above the regulator and ask the government for an audience.
It's like that guy yesterday would kept asking for Rocky directly sheesh.
It's like me as a CSR asking the CEO for a raise...
Irrespective of which the jig is almost up for Bell... and maybe just maybe the best way to deal with them is a death by a thousand cuts.
Rome wasn't destroyed in a day after all.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
| reply to grunze510
said by grunze510:Damn these companies like TekSavvy, Velcom, Ebox, and Acanac that try to compete with Bell to provide internet services, let alone good services. TekSavvy is stifling competition by using THEIR OWN HARDWARE that THEY PAID FOR. They don't deserve to have customers. I don't think they deserve my $29.95/month anymore. Worst joke ever |
|
 sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to Edgar_man_boy
said by "George Cope, President and CEO of BCE and Bell" :
"As in any other competitive industry in Canada, we should be able to
choose who distributes our services and how, be it wholesale, retail, direct
or any other creative form of distribution channel," Here's the scary line ... far more scary than the worry about the fttn service being provided to 3rd party sellers ... FTTN dispute would be the thin end of the wedge towards getting rid of ALL wholesale ISPs. It sets the precedent that they can determine if they allow wholesalers, and if they do, what services they can provide. That little "and how" immediately allows for throttling, capping and all manner of other things really fast. |
|
gdogg
join:2006-02-06
39123
4 edits | If I was the CRTC and the CEO of bell said that to me.
I would take bell away from bell and make it a publicly owned corporation immediately
His comments say, we (bell) own the internet in canada and we (bell) will decide what content it contains and we (bell) will decide how that content is distributed.
Monopoly much ... aren't monopolies like bell illegal, since bell has a monopoly over the the dsl market is ontario and so on. |
|
 otty
join:2008-10-24
Revelstoke, BC
1 edit | reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:I never really thought Bell would have such a colossal sense of entitlement that they could go above the regulator and ask the government for an audience. Not to defend Bell (God forbid), but I believe it is actually part of the statutory scheme that CRTC decisions may be appealed to Cabinet, so they are within their rights.
Edit: "12. (1) Within one year after a decision by the Commission, the Governor in Council may, on petition in writing presented to the Governor in Council within ninety days after the decision, or on the Governor in Council's own motion, by order, vary or rescind the decision or refer it back to the Commission for reconsideration of all or a portion of it."
s.12 Telecommunications Act 1993, c. 38
»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/LEGAL/TELECOM.HTM |
|
approval from:
BobJonkman 
| reply to Edgar_man_boy
To the tune of "It's My Party"
It's Bell's internet,
And they'll cry if they want to,
Cry if they want to.
You would cry too,
if competition happened to you. |
|
El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to otty
said by otty:Not to defend Bell (God forbid), but I believe it is actually part of the statutory scheme that CRTC decisions may be appealed to Cabinet, so they are within their rights. Perhaps CAIP members should consider doing the same from now on:
ie: CRTC rules in favor of throttling...
CAIP sez fine; We want an audience with the minister of industry, with accompanying outrage by TekSavvy geeks flooding the good minister's office?
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
shepd
join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Distributel
| said by El Quintron:ie: CRTC rules in favor of throttling... CAIP sez fine; We want an audience with the minister of industry, with accompanying outrage by TekSavvy geeks flooding the good minister's office? Sounds ripe for a filibuster...  |
|
| reply to Edgar_man_boy
Despite the costs involved there will be a point were the caip members need to appeal to the governor in council or to the federal court of appeals. I know they won't talk about it here (which is very very wise) but I do hope they've been working on a legal strategy since this all started.
As for this appeal, it sounds like a game of chicken. GiC says no Bell says ok we're stopping the FTTN, Rogers says jackpot. This is bell committing suicide; there's no way it would happen, no way they'd ever stop FTTN and network upgrades. Hopefully the GiC sees this because they are getting played otherwise. |
|
otty
join:2008-10-24
Revelstoke, BC | Unfortunately this is where all that lobbying is going to pay off. I'm not sure CAIP has wined and dined the ministers the way Bell has and has the same kind of first-name-basis familiarity with cabinet.
I think it is outrageous that the GiC can outright rescind a CRTC decision. Judicial review would be available but if you look at the case law on this the courts have always deferred to the "expertise" of such decision makers.
Bell has done this before... |
|
1 edit | reply to Edgar_man_boy
One might be surprised how cheap private lobbying can actually be. Not quite bell's skill level but hey everyone has to start somewhere.
It is a little strange but most delegation to commissions always reserves the final say to the GiC or minister. The government doesn't really like giving up power. There are circumstances where judicial review in this matter and throttling could be applied. If you look at s.64(1) of the act, there's a privative clause limiting those circumstances. |
|
El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
| +1
Basic lobbying is us writing our MPs and MPPs regarding these issues every single time.
Also, I do think it would be fairly easy for CAIP members to lobby younger MP/MPPs as they would have more knowledge of the consequences of a bad telecom policy.
@shepd and the Filibuster... using a Filibuster is a double edged sword.
Any legislation against Bell could be Filibustered... but so could the legislation ruling in favour of Bell. Which is why we should be shaking more hands with people on the hill.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
otty
join:2008-10-24
Revelstoke, BC
2 edits | reply to rex0
said by rex0:It is a little strange but most delegation to commissions always reserves the final say to the GiC or minister. The government doesn't really like giving up power. There are circumstances where judicial review in this matter and throttling could be applied. If you look at s.64(1) of the act, there's a privative clause limiting those circumstances. There is a general common law principle against complete delegation of power.
Privative clauses will influence how deferential courts are to decisions, but cannot completely exclude judicial review. What really seems to influence the level of deference applied in review is the expertise of the decision makers. We have all noted how inept the CRTC has been in understanding these issues but the court may not see it that way and itself lacks expertise. |
|
andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to Edgar_man_boy
MTS does not agree with bell
"'As in any other competitive industry in Canada, we should be able to choose who distributes our services and how, be it wholesale, retail, direct or any other creative form of distribution channel," said George is president and chief executive of BCE and Bell Canada.
Not so, says Chris Peirce, chief corporate officer for Bell rival MTS Allstream - the national division of Winnipeg-based Manitoba Telecom Services (TSX:MBT).
'What they are saying is that they should be able to have monopoly on that local network that they control," Peirce said in a phone interview.
MTS Allstream argues that's actually a public network, largely built when Bell and other former phone monopolies were assured a guaranteed rate of return by government regulators."
»www.google.com/hostednews/canadi···B0rGY5IQ |
|
1 edit | reply to otty
said by otty There is a general common law principle against complete delegation of power.
Privative clauses will influence how deferential courts are to decisions, but cannot completely exclude judicial review. What really seems to influence the level of deference applied in review is the expertise of the decision makers. We have all noted how inept the CRTC has been in understanding these issues but the court may not see it that way and itself lacks expertise.
:
I agree 100% I think I posted almost the same thing a couple weeks ago. I wasn't trying to imply privative clauses exclude review(despite what some governments want to believe about them) just that there's a delicate balance going on. |
|
