Did I miss a memo??? Who owns the Globe now? I still thought it was ctvgm....
. There was some share-shuffling when BCE bought CTV, likely for BCE to abide by the bare minimum of competition laws, such that BCE still has (I think) a minority stake in the Globe and in some others which were previously in that bundle.
Has anybody else noticed that the Globe seems much more critical of UBB now that they're not owned by CTVgm?
Did I miss a memo??? Who owns the Globe now? I still thought it was ctvgm....
85% of the globe was sold back to the Thomson family, BCE (through CTVgm) is holding on to a 15% minority stake but no longer has management control.
Ahhh....The Thomson's....this makes sense because at this point in Canadian Media there aren't many companies who could have afforded to take this on. Thanks for the info corster, greatly appreciated. It'll be nice to see a more objective viewpoint with the Globe and I may start reading it more than my Star/Sun combination that I read now.
Did I miss a memo??? Who owns the Globe now? I still thought it was ctvgm....
. There was some share-shuffling when BCE bought CTV, likely for BCE to abide by the bare minimum of competition laws, such that BCE still has (I think) a minority stake in the Globe and in some others which were previously in that bundle.
Details ? - Not sure....
Globe still has very slanted reporting as does CTV. And yes Bell still has stake in Globe.
Ahhh....The Thomson's....this makes sense because at this point in Canadian Media there aren't many companies who could have afforded to take this on. Thanks for the info corster, greatly appreciated. It'll be nice to see a more objective viewpoint with the Globe and I may start reading it more than my Star/Sun combination that I read now.
Deal closed last week or the week before... if you go on CTVgm's corporate site, you'll notice that there's no mention of the globe anymore other than in their corporate name, rather a giant empty space next to the CHUM logo where the Globe logo used to be, and on the G&M's site all the CTVglobemedia credits at the bottom are gone.
It mentions some not so crazy rates which Telus currently charges their own end-users/customers for Internet.
quote:For example, Telus is offering plans ranging from 13 gigabytes per month for a bundled price of $20, to 250 GB per month for $50.
I would not be offended at paying $50 for 250GB UNTHROTTLED usage per month, as long as any overage charges were fair and reasonable, cost-based and linear.
And correct me if wrong, but even this latest CRTC decision 2011-44 does not FORCE the other incumbent ISPs (such as Telus) to set low monthly caps, nor to charge any UBB at all - it only blesses BHell's plan to screw us thru THEIR Indie ISP partners, and recommends that the other incumbents submit tariffs if they wish to hop onto the BHell/CRTC bandwagon.
And correct me if wrong, but even this latest CRTC decision 2011-44 does not FORCE the other incumbent ISPs (such as Telus) to set low monthly caps, nor to charge any UBB at all - it only blesses BHell's plan to screw us thru THEIR Indie ISP partners, and recommends that the other incumbents submit tariffs if they wish to hop onto the BHell/CRTC bandwagon.
Does not force the incumbents to do anything, but allows the incumbents to enforce UBB on wholesalers who use their networks, matching their published UBB caps, EVEN if they waive or discount their retail UBB.
Does not force the incumbents to do anything, but allows the incumbents to enforce UBB on wholesalers who use their networks, matching their published UBB caps, EVEN if they waive or discount their retail UBB.
. So it looks like you agree with what I said.
My thrust was that Telus, for example, does not HAVE to levy ANY form of UBB on ANYBODY because of CRTC Decision 2011-44, if they should choose to take the 'High Road' on this.
Depending on how this plays out, some of the other incumbents may well (by their actions) break ranks with Bell on making their own form of UBB into BHell's warped flavour of the beast.
Splitting the incumbents along ideological business models could benefit our cause, and so I say that us LOBBYING the OTHER incumbents to be fair and reasonable about UBB, well (like vitamins) it could not hurt and MIGHT help.
. Here's the link to the 'STAY' application which JF filed today with the CRTC (against all UBB-related CRTC decisions beginning with 2010-255, and against Bell's several UBB-related tariff apps) :
. Here are some responses to JF's GiC Petition to Quash UBB, and/or to his CRTC motion to 'STAY' BHell's UBB proposals :
Followup motion to CRTC from Electronic Box (Indie ISP, aka eBox) to support JF Mezei's Stay of Execution motion (and regarding marketplace confusion of the most recent 'status quo').
As I suspected, it came online at CTV.ca's video archive some time after the broadcast was completed, but your way was easier.
The content of the story was not completely accurate, but close enough on some points, and the mainstream exposure to the problem of 'UBB' is welcome.
Closing remarks were wrong that it "will not affect most people", because so many of us are so close to the edge of where BHell's warped nonlinear version of so-called UBB will kick our ass if we take too long wiping it while some video is streaming in the other room !
That's why BHell brazenly set Ontario's cap at 25 GB, because while they may not hit all of us right away, by any reasonable estimate their so-called UBB will hit most of us not very far down the line.
. I have copied this post to here from a much longer thread in the TSI forum, a it will more likely get lost there.
said by Boni :
I don't know if this is the right place but I found this lawyer advertising that he is looking for anti-UBB group[s] to represent PRO BONO if they will go after Bell and the CRTC:
quote:Liberal industry critic Marc Garneau, who said he will pressure Mr. Clement to throw the decision back to the regulator, said he doesnt buy the large providers arguments about Internet network traffic and congestion.
Theres more and more use, Mr. Garneau said. But to some extent, its also self-serving as well. And in this case, the ruling of the CRTC has gone too much in favour of the arguments presented by the big players.
. This is the CRTC's link to JF's Application of 2011-01-28 to Stay CRTC Decision 2011-44 (UBB), and is our first public online proof that they received it from him.