dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
24
share rss forum feed

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
reply to I see

Re: Openmedia's effectiveness

Look at the bottom of their last email.

There is an unsubscribe thing. (I have my mail reader set to ignore HTML or convert it to text and I can still see it).

If you unsubscribe and they still send you stuff, then you can complain. But as long as you signed the petition and you do not unsubscribe, then can you really complain ?

Their communications may not be perfect and could stand some improvement, but are they really spam ? openmedia isn't some hidden chinese/indian firm selling pils that add 3 inches to your toes. It is a well known canadian organisation, so when they have an "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of their message, can you really accuse them of "spamming".

Perhaps they are informing you about something which is important but which you are not interested in. So unsubscribe and be done with it.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
No JF. Sending mass emails WITHOUT first opting in is SPAM. It doesn't matter if there is an unsubscribe link or not.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
Didn't people opt in when they signed the petition ?


Clarify

@videotron.ca

1 edit
reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:

Look at the bottom of their last email.

There is an unsubscribe thing. (I have my mail reader set to ignore HTML or convert it to text and I can still see it).

If you unsubscribe and they still send you stuff, then you can complain. But as long as you signed the petition and you do not unsubscribe, then can you really complain ?

Their communications may not be perfect and could stand some improvement, but are they really spam ? openmedia isn't some hidden chinese/indian firm selling pils that add 3 inches to your toes. It is a well known canadian organisation, so when they have an "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of their message, can you really accuse them of "spamming".

Perhaps they are informing you about something which is important but which you are not interested in. So unsubscribe and be done with it.

said by jfmezei:

Didn't people opt in when they signed the petition ?



JF, you don't understand, do you?

10,000+ people, and many of those DSLr forum members, *NEVER* subscribed to them in the first place.

10,000+ people, and many of those DSLr forum members, *NEVER* signed their petition in the first place.

What is it that you don't understand? Why is this so hard for you to grasp?


fanboysymptm

@bell.ca
Someone has come down with the typical internet fanboy syndrome, where bad/evil things start looking good and reasonable.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
When mlerner agreed to give those 10,000 names, did he strike a deal to protect those names, or did he just give those names out without any conditions ?

There are always 2 sides to a story. *IF* openmedia was given those names without any preconditions, why should they be blamed for making use of names ?

Now, if those names were given to openmedia with a caveat that they should be used solely for UBB issues, and openmedia is not using those names for other issues, then you have a valid beef.

Howevere, if those names were given to Openmedia and half the people on the list went and signed the petition online, that half become bona-fide members of openmedia and they are no longer getting communications because they were on mike lerner's list.

I don't think Mr Anderson has evil intents. And this is why I feel that some constructive help would greatly imporve Openmedia's image. It is clear from this thread that some people have a clear problem with how openmedia is working.

And no, I am not a fanboy. I am more of a devil's advocate. I've sent my suggestion to steve privately and he hasn't replied. You can deduct from this that my suggestions weren't all that pleasant.


TheGrassRoot

@bell.ca
There is nothing that will 'fix' Openmedia

Its just not a relevant organization anymore. It had its time in the sun and now its over, and I think that is okay.


Hypocrisy

@videotron.ca
reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:

When mlerner agreed to give those 10,000 names, did he strike a deal to protect those names, or did he just give those names out without any conditions ?

There are always 2 sides to a story. *IF* openmedia was given those names without any preconditions, why should they be blamed for making use of names ?

I'll make this short and you can do your own research into what spam is and what lists are, what privcom says etc

Can Steve Anderson and Open Media provide anything meaningful that these 10,000+ people provided consent of any type to be spammed when in fact these 10,000+ people never had any dealing with Steve Anderson or Open Media?

Steve Anderson knew very well what he was doing and did do.

Also, since you are defending their spam actions for money from people who never had anything to do with them, nor gave any type of consent, I think you should contact the government and have them rewrite some of this page just for you
»www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ecic-ceac.···html#q11

It doesn't matter what mlerner did or didn't do. His actions are not what is being debated here, so lets not drag him in. The kid was used. At least he had the honesty/integrity to say what he did since day 1, and did not run away and hide like Open Media has done after spamming people and using the information that they knew they should not use.

How many other lists or harvested Emails did they use?

How many fake signatures did they put up on their petitions?

This puts a lot of things on the table as very questionable.

said by jfmezei:

Now, if those names were given to openmedia with a caveat that they should be used solely for UBB issues, and openmedia is not using those names for other issues, then you have a valid beef.

The real beef here is that Open Media drooled at a very specific and targeted list of peoples private info for money. People who never had anything to do with them. People who had given zero consent to be targeted and spammed by their nefarious acquisition of personal information they they knew they should not have and use.

Since they targeted people who never had any dealing with them, this raises question on their whole privacy policy.

You can keep on defending their spam actions and use of private information from a very select group of people for which they never received consent, but I don't think it's making anyone look very good defending these type of actions.

Now I can add more to this and point out some things that are quite funny as people here learn about the 10,000+ people who never had anything to do with Steve Anderson and Open Media. Like his Quote to the Vancouver sun stating:
"It got more traction than anything we had ever put up.

"Within a few days, 10,000 people had signed it. That doesn't sound like a lot now, but at the time it was our biggest campaign ever."


Oh, look... there is that "10,000 people". I wonder where that came from?

It throws a lot of things into question. Don't you agree, JF? For some reason I think you will find something to defend this...

For me, the actions have spoken. If someone asked me to give an example of hypocrisy my first words to define it would be Open Media.

Hypocrisy:
Canada' anti-spam laws that they write about
Canadian Privacy that they write about
Their privacy policy

Hypocrisy, JF.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
When HP fired the VMS engineering team to be replaced by drones in india, the lady in charge of customer relationships refused to allow her indian replacement to have access to her distribution list.

When customers had signed up to that list, Sue had promised to never hand the list to anyone else and she upheld that promise.

If you have a private list and you hand the list over to another organisation, the responsability falls upon you for releasing the list and let the other orgaisation use it. And and if doing so, you provide no restrictions on the use, then the other organisation can use it as it wishes.

I am not privy to the transaction between mlerner and openmedia so I can't say if openmedia's use of the list is allowable or not.

Do you not feel that Openmedia can play an important role in upcoming issues ? If so, why not constructively help improve its policies with regards to fundraising and email communications to alleviate some of the beefs you have against them ?


Ignore this

@videotron.ca
said by jfmezei:

If you have a private list and you hand the list over to another organisation, the responsability falls upon you for releasing the list and let the other orgaisation use it. And and if doing so, you provide no restrictions on the use, then the other organisation can use it as it wishes.

You are blaming mlerner only. or at least *you* are trying to put 100% of the blame on him.

Does Open Media not have any responsibility? Or are they hypocrites? Preach one thing, yet do another?

You are also saying once steve anderson & open media took the list(s) then they have a right to spam people and to hell with any consent or privacy.

Then you completely ignore his first "10,000" people quote.

You also ignore how it makes everything about Open Media questionable.

You ignore their hypocrisy.

You ignore the fact they Steve Anderson and Open media showed they have little regard for consent and privacy by sticking all these people in a database to be mined for money.

You ignored the government webpage on it.

That is quite a lot of ignoring. Is this the ignore topic going on in Canchat? Am I in the right thread?

But I guess you must question it also since you are trying hard to ignore it while pretending you don't know what consent or spam is while defending them.

Have they decided to share with you their side on all this? After all, they are "open" and "approachable", right? If so, care to share it with everyone here?

Or maybe they will only state like they did last year, "this isn't the place to discuss this". In other words, we don't want people to know what we did.

Openness is a key to success. Are they open? Running away like last year, imo, shows they are not.

So far the only beef I have seen to date is their beef with privacy and anti-spam.


lucrativeftr

@bell.ca
maybe JF sees a lucrative future for himself in consumer advocacy and lobbying and doesn't want to burn any bridges publicly with OM because they could probably join forces and pump the public (and maybe even some corps) for money on a number of issues.

just some food for thought!
Expand your moderator at work

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
reply to Ignore this

Re: Openmedia's effectiveness

Please read carefully what I wrote. I stated that I had no information on what deal mlerner did with openmedia.

If he made a deal with them and openmedia broke the deal, then the fault lies with openmedia. If he made no deal and did not put any restriction on the use of the list, then you can't blame openmedia for continued use of that list

The types of reactions I am seeing here explain why openmedia is not intetested in participating here. I would have expected there could have been a smarter dialogue on how to improve openmedia since it is clear people here seem to find a lot of things that need to be improved.

But I guess such dialogue is not possible. It is a shame.


Choices

@videotron.ca
said by jfmezei:

If he made no deal and did not put any restriction on the use of the list, then you can't blame openmedia for continued use of that list

Why?

What makes you think they would have zero responsibility taking data that isn't theirs, even if given via a back-door?

What makes you think they would have zero responsibility for making a very specific database on people who never gave their consent to open media to be spammed or databased, or added to their petitions?

I think you have a lot to learn about consent, privacy and spam. And so does Steve Anderson of Open media.

If talking about this in the open is not "smart dialog" to you, then maybe you have no worthwhile dialog to contribute other than pimping them and helping them to spam more people?

It's better to run and hide and not talk about it because it isn't "smart dialog" to you. heh.

As for "Open" media not wanting to participate here, that is their choice.

They ran when this was brought up a year ago.

They pulled a guilt trip on sbrook about the forged Email headers.

Running and hiding from the tough questions seems to be their strong point, while you try and speak for them by being condescending and playing dumb and electing to say being "open" isn't smart dialog.

There is more to this that involves another party who is also electing to stay quiet (and it's not mlerner), and I think you know this. But hey, it's best to bury questions than to be open.

Raising questions is now not "smart dialog". How about that.

Can you go any lower?

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
If anyone who signed mlerner's petition is not happy that he gave their names to openmedia, then they should take it up with mike lerner. The onus is on him to explain under what conditions he gave openmedia access to those names and whether openmedia honoured or not those conditions.

And if it would greatly help if you didn't hide behind anonymous postings. For all I know, you are one of the lawyers working for Mirko since it is Bell that stands to gain by smearing Openmedia.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to lucrativeftr
said by lucrativeftr :

just some food for thought!

You either got something to say or you don't.

I can confidently say that JF's thoughts are pretty well "nourished" and he wouldn't be posting if he wasn't clear on what he wanted to say.

I'm not going to say that I agree with him all the time (or even most of the time) but the notion that JF would be underhandedly astroturfing for OpenMedia is patently absurd.
--
I'm watching District 9 again, and I've come to realize something: Wikus's got it all wrong. If I were morphing into a 9 foot tall hyper-dextrous alien that can shoot lightning bolts and get high off cat food why would I ever want to become human again?


I LOLd

@videotron.ca
reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:

If anyone who signed mlerner's petition is not happy that he gave their names to openmedia, then they should take it up with mike lerner. The onus is on him to explain under what conditions he gave openmedia access to those names and whether openmedia honoured or not those conditions.

And if it would greatly help if you didn't hide behind anonymous postings. For all I know, you are one of the lawyers working for Mirko since it is Bell that stands to gain by smearing Openmedia.

Once again you are showing yourself.

And once again *you* are putting 100% of the blame on mlerner. Not only are you now back-peddling but now you actually come out and blame him instead of beating around the bush and playing dumb.

Like I previously said, *you* have a lot to learn about privacy and consent, as does Steve Anderson and Open media.

You both have a lot to learn about SPAM. You know what spam is now? You know... that thing that Open Media did w/o consent to people who had nothing to do with them? And no, it wasn't mlerner who spammed people w/o consent nor did mlerner send snail mail with totally fabricated statements stating how he got the CRTC to declare the Net an Open Medium on his own. Nor did mlerner spam people with lies about how he got the CRTC to pass special laws all on his own then asked for money in the same letter.

Oh? You forgot about the snail mail of lies? I didn't. I got it. As did others here.

You might also want to read up on this type of marketing when you take a list w/o peoples consent or harvest them, make a database on them and also make fabrications in the snail mail in order to solicit money.

mlerner didn't do this, as you are saying here. Open Media and Steve Anderson did this.

mlerner was used for a very specific list of people that is worth money on the market. Even above average money when the list is specialized like this was and targeted a very select group of people.

Steve Anderson treated each of those people on that very specialized list as a dollar sign when he sent out his fabrications snail mail.

So don't blame mlerner here JF, as you are doing (or trying to do in order to protect your buddy). mlerner didn't do *any* of this. Unless of course if mlerner wants to say he got 50% of any money and took part in it. As well as a portion of the supposed $70K from the resellers to get this job done.

Also, it doesn't matter what conditions anyone set on peoples privacy. Where did you get this ludicrous idea? Care to share the link?

Does privacy and consent now require backroom dealings? Again you don't have a clue and are basically saying anything. And what you are spouting here is absolutely ridiculous. What you are saying is that there is no privacy and no required consent with backroom dealings. I can't help but chuckle. Stick with Bell-CRTC filings JF...

Here, I took all of DSLr's Emails and spammed people with lies for money. But it's ok I had a backroom deal with the owner to only do it 3 times. If I do it a 4th time I am out of order and broke the conditions of betraying peoples privacy. LOL


Disagree

@videotron.ca
reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:

I can confidently say that JF's thoughts are pretty well "nourished" and he wouldn't be posting if he wasn't clear on what he wanted to say.

I'll wholeheartedly disagree with you here.

In this topic he has pretended to not know what spam is. Not know what consent is. Blamed mlerner, then didn't blame him, then backtracked and blamed him again (but blamed more clearly this time). Wants to stop questioning things under the guise of not being "smart".

And this is by memory....

I can go back and read more trash and come out with a more comprehensive list, but it's mosty a lot of nothing except how Open Media and Steve Anderson are blameless for anything. Anything contrary to this is not "smart dialog"


eek anon

@videotron.ca
reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:

And if it would greatly help if you didn't hide behind anonymous postings. For all I know, you are one of the lawyers working for Mirko since it is Bell that stands to gain by smearing Openmedia.

Open Media smeared themselves with what they did. All by themselves. Then ran away from it.

And if you are all of a sudden paranoid about non-registered people because you can't PM them, then ask DSLr to remove all non-registered posts because you don't like seeing what no one should be allowed to say in public, in your opinion.


WiFi
It's In The Air

join:2002-06-06
NiagaraFalls
Reviews:
·ikTel Networks
·Start Communicat..
reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:

Didn't people opt in when they signed the petition ?

I recall opting in when I signed the petition.

Vomio

join:2008-04-01
Reviews:
·odynet
I was one of mlerner's 10,000, I thought of it as my 1.
I had no problem with the transfer of my email address and IIRC I too opted in.

In retrospect there was obviously at least a misunderstanding about the use of mlerner's list. In light of that I can see why mlerner is pissed off, but it should be noted that he has not pursued it further, probably after weighing the negatives versus the positives.

I am not convinced that without Open Media we would not be suffering under UBB right now, just like everything else we wanted to stop in this CRTC charade. It is possible to say the same thing about JF's petition to cabinet or maybe the now days more focused voices of the IISPs.

In combination, we as contributors and voices created a perfect storm in this imperfect system and couldn't be ignored by the politicians and eventually the owned media.

IMHO Open Media has become overwhelmed by the number of potential fish in the barrel all of them just causes.
So much is rotten, the selection of a target is both easy and difficult.

It is possible that Open Media has picked too many targets and diluted their voice, I personally think so, but the big question is which one or ones to pick?

I don't look at Open Media emails or even their phone call as spam, but at the same time, with so many non-profits crying out for donations and my limited personal funding it is difficult to allocate multiple donations in a year to any one.

Did Open Media do good? I think the answer is yes. Do they have the potential to positively represent the wishes of a large group in the future, I think the answer is also yes.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
I had offered to Steve to post stuff on his behalf should he so desire.

Here is what he wrote as a message targetted to DSLR users:

quote:
If anyone received an email without taking part in one of our
tools/petitions/events etc... it was not deliberate. Reports of peoplegetting unsolicited emails from us or having trouble unsubscribed is comesas a surprise. We do more than most groups to ensure people can unsubscribe, but I'm going to take further actions to ensure as best I can that nobody gets unsolicited emails from OpenMedia.ca.

- We're going to devise a plan for

A) making 100% no one is on our list who hasn't opted in at some point - I've asked our tech people to develop script or query that automatically deletes any email address that have or do land in our advocacy system that haven't come through our opt-in petitions etc... I'm asking that this script/query be run regularly to make sure no unsolicited email addresses get into our system from hackers, big telecom infiltrators or by human error etc... I don't expect there to be any, but we'll do this as a proactive measure

B) making unsubscribing
easier and better ensuring it works when people click on it (tracking it somehow to make sure).

C) Putting a more clear policy for this in our privacy policy (could include us doing regular scripts/queries to ensure only opted-in email addresses are in our system.)

D) Considering including a note or link to a note about options for mailing lists etc.. in one of our emails. I've also asked CIPPIC to do a spam regulation compliance audit
- although it might not make sense until the new act comes down.

If DSLR weren't so hostile to him, he might have posted it himself. But this shows that OpenMedia is responsive to concerns but it is a shame that there is such a hostile environment against them here.


Duck Walk

@videotron.ca
said by jfmezei:

1. I had offered to Steve to post stuff on his behalf should he so desire.

2. Here is what he wrote as a message targetted to DSLR users:

3. Apparantly said by Steve Anderson, parroted by JF because Open Media is to scared to come to the forum

quote:
If anyone received an email without taking part in one of our
tools/petitions/events etc... it was not deliberate. Reports of people getting unsolicited emails from us or having trouble unsubscribed is comes as a surprise.
4. If DSLR weren't so hostile to him, he might have posted it himself. But this shows that OpenMedia is responsive to concerns but it is a shame that there is such a hostile environment against them here.

1. So now your the AstroTurf groups parrot because he's ascared to come here? Wow what a man!

Doesn't it make you ask questions JF when a grown man is too scared to give his own reply instead of sending a parrot and pretending how very hostile DSLr is because someone just might say words? (and who knows, someone may know a bit more and may ask him more than is stated in this topic....)

Why would a grown man be ascared?

2. Well since you are targeting DSLr on his behalf w/o commenting on why he targeted 10,000 people who never had anything to do with him and his AstroTurf group, maybe you should ask him to reply to the questions put before him in this topic instead of just parroting his ignorance to it all?

3. Again, more lies from the lips of Steve Anderson. And you parrot his lies.

How was taking a list of 10,000 people, then spamming them with lies not deliberate, JF?

How could this all of a sudden be a surprise when I said it to his virtual face, in this very forum, over a year ago? And let us not forget he got someone else to parrot his reply back then as well.

If anything, JF, you just showed everyone how full of sh*t he is, and I thank you for showing this to us.

4. Hostile? Ah yes, hostile.
-Asking why he spammed 10,000 people with a snail mail of lies is hostile.
-Asking why he even used people who never had anything to do with is hostile.
-Steve Anderson running away from the question is hostile of DSLr
-His hostility towards sbrook when sbrook inquired why Email headers were forged is due to sbrooks hostility.
-Asking this AstroTurf group anything is either "not smart dialog" to you or now it's deemed "hostile".
-Him telling the press that the first 10,000 people was the hardest to get (yet he was given those 10,000 people), then you quoting him here saying it was unintentional is very hostile of me to bring up.

You having to be Steve Andersons parrot speaks volumes once again.

However, I especially like how you pointed out his lies by parroting his quote (#3). This is absolutely funny. Does any truth come out of this guys face?


JoJoBlue

join:2009-12-08
Scarborough, ON
reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:

I had offered to Steve to post stuff on his behalf should he so desire.

Here is what he wrote as a message targetted to DSLR users:

quote:
If anyone received an email without taking part in one of our
tools/petitions/events etc... it was not deliberate. Reports of peoplegetting unsolicited emails from us or having trouble unsubscribed is comesas a surprise. We do more than most groups to ensure people can unsubscribe, but I'm going to take further actions to ensure as best I can that nobody gets unsolicited emails from OpenMedia.ca.

- We're going to devise a plan for

A) making 100% no one is on our list who hasn't opted in at some point - I've asked our tech people to develop script or query that automatically deletes any email address that have or do land in our advocacy system that haven't come through our opt-in petitions etc... I'm asking that this script/query be run regularly to make sure no unsolicited email addresses get into our system from hackers, big telecom infiltrators or by human error etc... I don't expect there to be any, but we'll do this as a proactive measure

B) making unsubscribing
easier and better ensuring it works when people click on it (tracking it somehow to make sure).

C) Putting a more clear policy for this in our privacy policy (could include us doing regular scripts/queries to ensure only opted-in email addresses are in our system.)

D) Considering including a note or link to a note about options for mailing lists etc.. in one of our emails. I've also asked CIPPIC to do a spam regulation compliance audit
- although it might not make sense until the new act comes down.

If DSLR weren't so hostile to him, he might have posted it himself. But this shows that OpenMedia is responsive to concerns but it is a shame that there is such a hostile environment against them here.

I hate to say this... But unless the administrators of DSLR themselves have condemned OpenMedia, otherwise I find it very worrying if the advocacy group that is supposed to represent hundreds of thousands (or more) Canadians in fighting against large corporations and government bodies is afraid to come on DSLR because some of our members are apparently too hostile.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
People are not interested in participating here if all they get are schills who exagerate all sorts of accusations and nothing constructive.

not everyone has skin thick enough to widthstand DSLR when DSLR turns against you.

grunze510

join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC
kudos:1
said by jfmezei:

People are not interested in participating here if all they get are schills who exagerate all sorts of accusations and nothing constructive.

not everyone has skin thick enough to widthstand DSLR when DSLR turns against you.

Maybe they need a George Burger (advisor for a certain Chatham-based... aw screw it. He's an advisor for TekSavvy.). That guy was pretty freaking calm and on the ball in his two debates with a CBC News host who does pretty much nothing aside from childish name calling (and some other stock related things) (Kevin O'Leary).


Duck Waddle

@videotron.ca
reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:

People are not interested in participating here if all they get are schills who exagerate all sorts of accusations and nothing constructive.

not everyone has skin thick enough to widthstand DSLR when DSLR turns against you.

So now you are saying Steve Anderson never got the list of people who never had anything to do with him?

Are you now saying no one ever approached him with this and he never ran away from it?

It's all an "exaggeration" now?

Hmm, Let's see how you has played so far (since you are speaking for him and being his parrot):

1st it was, "not smart dialog". Then it was, "not Steve Andersons fault". Then it was "the fault of the people" who signed a petition having nothing to do with Steve Anderson or the AstroTruf group. Then it was all "mlerners fault". Then it was "DSLr is a hostile environment". Then it was, "I'm anon", Now "I'm a shill" all of a sudden, but for who? You don't say. Now "DSLr turned against him". And Now it's all an exaggeration... It never happened.

k. Whatever you say.

BTW, are those your words? Or are you parroting him and the AstroTurf group again?

Have more excuses for this AstroTurf group?

You sure are pointing a lot of fingers at everyone except for the person and group who did it.


A thought

@videotron.ca
reply to grunze510
said by grunze510:

Maybe they need a George Burger

Maybe they need to come out honest? Apologize? Admit what they did?

But, it never happened. The snail mail spam of lies many of us on DSLr got never happened now.

Denial is a pretty bad thing when many of the people here got it.

I think JF made them look bad again.


Topiatic

join:2011-02-20
Oakville, ON
reply to grunze510
said by grunze510:

CBC News host who does pretty much nothing aside from childish name calling (and some other stock related things) (Kevin O'Leary).

Aha! Our anon videotron is revealed
--
Bah!


bbbc

join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica
kudos:2
Reviews:
·FreedomPop
reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei :

If DSLR weren't so hostile to him, he might have posted it himself. But this shows that OpenMedia is responsive to concerns but it is a shame that there is such a hostile environment against them here.

I believe the hostility stems from Steve's complete absence on the site. DSLRers see something from him in their inbox, but don't see his presence where UBB (or whatever sh*tty billing practice) would have the biggest impact, the forum for bandwidth hogs (being playful folks).

I don't get the fact that if Steve can battle the duopolies, why this crowd is any different to address. I've spoken to Steve on the phone and I told him he needs to address the DSLR community, not just the duopoly customers who don't have a clue what the hell is going on with Canadian broadband and have zero desire to unbundle their services.

--
Consumerist.com | Consumers Union