| reply to JGROCKY
Re: From Rocky: OUTRAGEOUS CRTC Descision
Rocky vs. von Finckenstein |
said by JGROCKY:tx... Even with a final decision.... there are many avenues beyond that will evolve. This is a long war on consumer rights, so so long as the consumers don't stop fighting eventually something will give. Consider this: In a little over one year, we've gone from being throttled out of the blue to having a parliamentary rally, three discussions on open internet, multiple CIPPIC/Geist appearances on Net Neutrality, CRTC filings on throttling, Usage Based Billing, Equal Speeds, Central Office Access, Unbundling and Internet Management Practices Hearings.... Not to mention anything that's occurred on DSLR for submissions, protesting, debates, MLPPP, etc.... Big fan Rocky, but you forgot to mention that you were handed your ass by the CRTC twice now.
The decision due in November resulting from last month's hearings HAS to be consistent with the decision just handed down and the one in 2008 -- otherwise the CRTC paints themselves as being schizophrenic to the rest of the world, even though we (the techno-literate) already know that to be the case.
All the fury that appears in the forums, all the letters to the CRTC from concerned citizens are meaningless when you are dealing with a bunch of technology and imagination challenged political appointees. They take refuge behind arcane points of law and interpretations which boggle the mind.
Others in here quite rightly point out that you need to go to court,, and then to Cabinet (if necessary) - and then to the streets - especially during an election campaign. |
|
 JGROCKYPremium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | Most of the forward movement and victories have occurred outside the CRTC but this isn't to say we're not winning there too. The hearings occurred due to the outcry from you guys... the Public hearings on Network Management practices would not have happened without that. Also, the issues of net neutrality and privacy were nothing until all of this/us.
Little battles lost/conceded don't mean a war lost.... At the end of the day competition and truth will prevail. It always does.... people get tired of the alternative.... they always do!
--
TSI Rocky - TekSavvy Solutions Inc.
Authorized TSI employee ( »TekSavvy FAQ »Official support in the forum )
|
|
| said by JGROCKY:Most of the forward movement and victories have occurred outside the CRTC but this isn't to say we're not winning there too. The hearings occurred due to the outcry from you guys... the Public hearings on Network Management practices would not have happened without that. Also, the issues of net neutrality and privacy were nothing until all of this/us. Little battles lost/conceded don't mean a war lost.... At the end of the day competition and truth will prevail. It always does.... people get tired of the alternative.... they always do! thats exactly right. The way things are going, it wouldnt be long until a lot more people realize what is happening. Of course they will start seeing it on their bills and it will be well known when people sign up.
So the only thing is we hope there would be time to PREVENT rather than REVERSE, if it is ever too late. 
Thats why it IS imperative that we continue to do anything we can * PLEASE * !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! =-_) |
|
| reply to JGROCKY
I am happy to say that sometimes principles outweigh jus looking at the bottom line in this household.
My wife and I agreed we'd get rid of Satellite TV before we quit you guys.
Rock-on, Rocky!
--
Cheers! |
|
| said by drjp81:I am happy to say that sometimes principles outweigh jus looking at the bottom line in this household. My wife and I agreed we'd get rid of Satellite TV before we quit you guys. Rock-on, Rocky! We got rid of cable/satellite TV 2 years ago. Not missing it one bit. |
|
| reply to drjp81
said by drjp81:I am happy to say that sometimes principles outweigh jus looking at the bottom line in this household. My wife and I agreed we'd get rid of Satellite TV before we quit you guys. Rock-on, Rocky! I've never seen my wife get so angry over a telecom issue than tonight when I explained the goings-on. Usually she's content to let me worry about it, vent a bit to her from time to time. This time, it's her who's demanding we speak to our MP about it!
Anyone else live in Ottawa Centre? The more, the merrier... |
|
KC
join:2006-11-08
Ottawa, ON Reviews:
 ·WIND Mobile
| said by Abattoir:nyone else live in Ottawa Centre? The more, the merrier... Sorry I'm in Ottawa South, thats McGuinty Land. Dewer should be in the loop, he is young and keen... |
|
| reply to Abattoir
said by Abattoir:I've never seen my wife get so angry over a telecom issue than tonight when I explained the goings-on. Usually she's content to let me worry about it, vent a bit to her from time to time. This time, it's her who's demanding we speak to our MP about it! I suppose taking the time to explain the whole thing properly in plain english to someone, has only one effect: the revolt before injustice.
--
Cheers! |
|
a1_AndyPremium
join:2005-12-29
Oshawa, ON Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
3 edits | said by drjp81:said by Abattoir:I've never seen my wife get so angry over a telecom issue than tonight when I explained the goings-on. Usually she's content to let me worry about it, vent a bit to her from time to time. This time, it's her who's demanding we speak to our MP about it! I suppose taking the time to explain the whole thing properly in plain english to someone, has only one effect: the revolt before injustice. Tried that lat night at the pub only to hear "Teksavvy needs a good kick in the rear for STEALING bells customers". She believes that bell needs to be and remain a monopoly;
1. because Canada is to big and it cost's money to deliver the services to rural area's.
2. because she watched her retirement shares plummet as the teachers deal fell apart at the same time smaller ISP's and phone carriers where taking customers in the 10,000's from bell.
I can't tell you on how many levels her first statement is wrong. ie; we get charged delivery and line fee's on our phone bill, they where given right of way to everything they needed, the 911 fee's, the $600 mill+ that bell refuses to give back to Customers, the out sourcing of everything they can to take work from Canadians, extra
Statement number 2 shows us that some/many people are scared and support bell in any thing that bell chooses to do no matter how un ethical or underhanded because they don't want to tank their retirement share's.
all in all I changed the conversation after those statements no changing her opinion. |
|
|
|
| said by a1_Andy:said by drjp81:said by Abattoir:I've never seen my wife get so angry over a telecom issue than tonight when I explained the goings-on. Usually she's content to let me worry about it, vent a bit to her from time to time. This time, it's her who's demanding we speak to our MP about it! I suppose taking the time to explain the whole thing properly in plain english to someone, has only one effect: the revolt before injustice. Tried that lat night at the pub only to hear "Teksavvy needs a good kick in the rear for STEALING bells customers". She believes that bell needs to be and remain a monopoly; 1. because Canada is to big and it cost's money to deliver the services to rural area's. 2. because she watched her retirement shares plummet as the teachers deal fell apart at the same time smaller ISP's and phone carriers where taking customers in the 10,000's from bell. I can't tell you on how many levels her first statement is wrong. ie; we get charged delivery and line fee's on our phone bill, they where given right of way to everything they needed, the 911 fee's, the $600 mill+ that bell refuses to give back to Customers, the out sourcing of everything they can to take work from Canadians, extra Statement number 2 shows us that some/many people are scared and support bell in any thing that bell chooses to do no matter how un ethical or underhanded because they don't want to tank their retirement share's. all in all I changed the conversation after those statements no changing her opinion. people have been brainwashed from the start way too easily it seems.
guess its not really just about numbers, its about smart people in numbers with the facts straight =/ |
|
 pnjunctionTeksavvy ExtremePremium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to a1_Andy
said by a1_Andy:Tried that lat night at the pub only to hear "Teksavvy needs a good kick in the rear for STEALING bells customers". She believes that bell needs to be and remain a monopoly; 1. because Canada is to big and it cost's money to deliver the services to rural area's. 2. because she watched her retirement shares plummet as the teachers deal fell apart at the same time smaller ISP's and phone carriers where taking customers in the 10,000's from bell. I can't tell you on how many levels her first statement is wrong. ie; we get charged delivery and line fee's on our phone bill, they where given right of way to everything they needed, the 911 fee's, the $600 mill+ that bell refuses to give back to Customers, the out sourcing of everything they can to take work from Canadians, extra Statement number 2 shows us that some/many people are scared and support bell in any thing that bell chooses to do no matter how un ethical or underhanded because they don't want to tank their retirement share's. all in all I changed the conversation after those statements no changing her opinion. Haha...I wonder if she's the one of the greedy idiots that bought Bell at $40 because the sale was going to be for $42. She deserves everything she got. If she was/is smart enough to hang on (unlikely) the shares will go back up, there's nothing 'wrong' with the company (at least from a fiscal standpoint, they're ethically bankrupt). Edit: in the short to medium-term anyways, they could be outdone by FFTH but there's still plenty left of milk left in the copper twisted pair cow for years to come.
In a way her stubborn greed and fear is representative as you say, from the public to investors all the way up the Bell executives. |
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | reply to a1_Andy
What the heck? She's blaming TekSavvy for the deal falling apart? It was a stupid deal to make in the first place, I would doubt either side didn't know of the financial problems and they started well before TekSavvy started getting the huge influx of new customers. |
|
pnjunctionTeksavvy ExtremePremium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
kudos:1
1 edit | said by mlerner:What the heck? She's blaming TekSavvy for the deal falling apart? It was a stupid deal to make in the first place, I would doubt either side didn't know of the financial problems and they started well before TekSavvy started getting the huge influx of new customers. This is getting of topic but the whole deal was stupid for sure. Buying the company for $52 billion with $33 billion of debt was insane.
To give Teksavvy any credit/blame in the deal falling apart is beyond generous. It fell apart because the banks clammed up on giving out $33B of credit and the economy was tanking among other things. |
|
a1_AndyPremium
join:2005-12-29
Oshawa, ON Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed
1 edit | reply to mlerner
She actually said that bell should be the only carrier period and we need monopolies like bell or we would have nothing. "Smaller ISP's and phone companies should never been allowed to existed in the first place." The reason she mentioned Teksavvy is she asked me how many customers Teksavvy has taken from bell, I answered that I 'think' it's over 30,000 since last summer (the number may actually be higher if I remember correctly). I just couldn't talk to her on the topic.
As for bell financial problems (lol) I don't think they would have been in as much trouble had they not pissed off 5% (is that number right?) their customer base with the throttle. That 5% most likely switched providers and took another 5% of friends and family with them. I personally know of at least 50+ people that no longer use a bell service directly due to bells ethics on the throttle matter and price difference alone.
Edit; pnjunction
I should add she has had the shares for at least 20+ years as they are part of her retirement investment plan that she is on right now, don't know how it works but I know she must have lost plenty. |
|
mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | That's just hilarious because if we never had 'smaller ISPs' Bell would still be selling 1 meg for $40. |
|
a1_AndyPremium
join:2005-12-29
Oshawa, ON Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| said by mlerner:That's just hilarious because if we never had 'smaller ISPs' Bell would still be selling 1 meg for $40. And her shares would be good.......... |
|
pnjunctionTeksavvy ExtremePremium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
kudos:1 | reply to a1_Andy
She's got a point about having one carrier because putting down duplicates of the same copper or even co-locating RDSLAMs everywhere would just be wasteful and end up costing everyone more money.
However, this carrier needs to be either public/non-profit or regulated with an iron fist because, for obvious reasons, poorly regulated profit-driven monopolies/oligopolies are bad and will bleed us dry. Anybody who can't understand this basic point is either irreconcilably dumb or needs a lesson in economics. |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
 ·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
 ·voip.ms
| reply to a1_Andy
That's hilarious,
My inlaws work for Bell, and they thought we were better of with Primus (before they pissed up off) and wished their call center(s) were as good as TSI's!
But there is a massive sense of entitlement there... I won't bother giving examples but when I worked there, some managers thought that the Canadian Public owed Bell, not the other way around...
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | reply to a1_Andy
said by a1_Andy:said by mlerner:That's just hilarious because if we never had 'smaller ISPs' Bell would still be selling 1 meg for $40. And her shares would be good.......... Yeah.. until everyone defects to Rogers and the stock plummets again. |
|
pnjunctionTeksavvy ExtremePremium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to a1_Andy
said by a1_Andy: I should add she has had the shares for at least 20+ years as they are part of her retirement investment plan that she is on right now, don't know how it works but I know she must have lost plenty. Still I bet she had $$$ in her eyes with the news of that $42.75 price that was inflated even when the markets were peaking back in 2007.
Like I said there's nothing fiscally wrong with Bell (they're doing a great job screwing customers out of cash) they just dropped badly because they were at that inflated peak when the market tanked and dragged them down with it.
I saw a fund manager just this morning on CBC business news saying that Bell and Rogers are good buys right now because there's nothing wrong with them (again fiscally not ethically) so they'll bounce back quickly when the markets recover.
Regardless her anger at Teksavvy is woefully ignorant and misguided. |
|
