 elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
 ·Cybersurf Intern..
| CRTC wants public help on new wireless rules The CRTC wants you help in establishing new rules and consumer protection for the wireless market.
Now herein lies the rub.
Rogers has given the CRTC a draft of what it thinks the rules should be as a "starting point'.
Telus also is quite happy in order to eliminate the different rules in different provinces/territories.
So if those two are on board, you know it's going to be a joke. So when Rogers et all break the rules, the provincal consumer protection agencies (what a laugh that is) will just point to the CRTC, who will do absolutely SFA, because we all know they are in the pockets of those they are supposed to regulate.
»www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-in···4604308/
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake....... |
|
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 | Why do I get the feeling they want to just tick off the check-box that says they asked for public input... |
|
elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand | reply to elwoodblues
Here is the link to the CRTC comments :
»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2012/r121011.htm |
|
| This isn't the only thing the CRTC needs help with........ the list is VERY long....  |
|
| reply to elwoodblues
Canadians are therefore invited to share their views on:
The terms and conditions that should be addressed by a code for cellphones and mobile devices
to whom the code should apply
how the code should be enforced, and
how the code’s effectiveness should be assessed.
Comments will be accepted until November 20, 2012. Canadians can participate in this proceeding by:
In other words, is the industry group (by the industry), the CWTA, doing it's job and what can be done better?
I fully expect the Consumer Union to be involved in this one since they have attacked the CWTA already, and quite nicely at that.
It seems to be wanting all the issues on the table that people have had in the past. That is, all the roadblocks they encountered due to ToS/conditions/privacy and other with their provider and the CWTA and look at these providers ToS and if the CWTA was involved and more. And also if the CWTA should be continuing to be the one people should be going to for help (after-all they are a self- regulatory indistry group protecting their own wireless interests and were forced to have a code by the CRTC thanks to the consumers union).
I think this is amazing that they are doing this. I'm a bit stunned by this release actually. I don't know if I should be calling this out as total bullshit and a bullshit show, or if something is changing over at the CRTC for the better?
You can bet the CWTA, Bell, Rogers, Telus, and Videotron have their million dollar lawyers all over this and keeping an eye every topic they can find on the net about this to monitor what will be said.
I seriously don't know if we should call it all a bullshit show. Seems to good to be true. Will people just be ignored and only the million dollar industry lawyer voices be heard?
So who here wants to volunteer to be the voice/name of some people here and get a list/filing going that you can submit on behalf of everyone?
I think elwoodblues and bt already called it out as bullshit. But... Dunno. |
|
|
|
 BTW
@videotron.ca | BTW, does anyone happen to know or have the links to various other countries "rules of conduct", or "wireless codes", or "national codes"? Like the EU, Japan, China, India, US, etc? Tried looking for these and only found rates or nothing at all. |
|
| said by BTW :BTW, does anyone happen to know or have the links to various other countries "rules of conduct", or "wireless codes", or "national codes"? Like the EU, Japan, China, India, US, etc? Tried looking for these and only found rates or nothing at all.
This article has some ideas near the bottom
»www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-elga···chnology |
|
 El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
·TekSavvy DSL
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·voip.ms
| reply to elwoodblues
Peter Nowak has some good advice:
»wordsbynowak.com/2012/10/12/wireless-crtc/
Worth the read...
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand | Consultations are limited to contract terms. Big F'n Deal! |
|
El QuintronResident Mouth BreatherPremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·WIND Mobile
·voip.ms
| said by elwoodblues:Consultations are limited to contract terms. Big F'n Deal!
Limiting contracts would certainly go a long way to improving our competitive situation... so it's a start.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have |
|
BTW
@videotron.ca | reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:Consultations are limited to contract terms. Big F'n Deal!
A lot is in that ToS.
Such as Rogers/Videotrons right to determine if you have a right to privacy.
Ref:
» Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada
»SaskTel Under Privacy Investigation
»[Internet] Warning - you can be locked out of your own videotron
»Rogers privacy violation contributes to divorce
Now, elwoodblues, I know we didn't see eye-to-eye on some of these issues, but, your rights shouldn't be tossed by some ridiculous ramblings in a ToS that will cost you the same price as a house to fight, while a company says, "Well, it's written in our 475,000 word ToS that says so".
This is just one example of rights people lose, even though it shouldn't happen. It's wrong.... While a company hides... This should be preventable and a company held accountable.
While one or two of examples (links) above are in regards to non-wireless, the same can happen in wireless. No difference really. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand Reviews:
·Cybersurf Intern..
| said by BTW :said by elwoodblues:Consultations are limited to contract terms. Big F'n Deal!
A lot is in that ToS. Such as Rogers/Videotrons right to determine if you have a right to privacy. Ref: » Hurt Locker P2P Lawsuit Comes to Canada» SaskTel Under Privacy Investigation» [Internet] Warning - you can be locked out of your own videotron» Rogers privacy violation contributes to divorceNow, elwoodblues, I know we didn't see eye-to-eye on some of these issues, but, your rights shouldn't be tossed by some ridiculous ramblings in a ToS that will cost you the same price as a house to fight, while a company says, "Well, it's written in our 475,000 word ToS that says so". This is just one example of rights people lose, even though it shouldn't happen. It's wrong.... While a company hides... This should be preventable and a company held accountable. While one or two of examples (links) above are in regards to non-wireless, the same can happen in wireless. No difference really. The TOS's haven't been tested in court yet,they have in the US and SCOTUS has sided with the corporations. Despite Harper's best efforts our SCC is nothing like the US, but we need a class action law suit (even though the TOS says you can't sue them) to test this mouseprint.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake....... |
|
BTW
@videotron.ca | said by elwoodblues:but we need a class action law suit (even though the TOS says you can't sue them) to test this mouseprint.
Any part of a ToS that states you have to go to arbitration and can't sue or go to court is not valid in Quebec. This already went to court and they came down on the Telco stating, "you don't get to decide who has rights and who doesn't, we do."
This also occurred in Ontario approx 2-3 years later, after the Quebec verdict, when someone tried to sue Dell and Dell has the arbitration clause. The people won (it was a class action I believe against Dell, the ref to both should be on Geists site that I recall).
So now to touch base on what you stated. Not true at all, and they have been tested in court. However, Canadian courts have so far put a value of almost nil (zip, zero, nada) on privacy and privacy breaches.
In addition, the CRTC seems to think privacy is not their issue. Case in point when they told the priv commissioner to comment on DPI at the CRTC hearings and the priv commish stated to their face, privacy as it pertains to the laws in Canada does fall under your control as stated in the Telcom Act, and you already have the power to enforce Canadian privacy legislation.
Again, this is only one example as it pertains to privacy in a ToS. Not the entire gambit of issues to do with privacy. Many more issues falls under this one little topic they are asking for comments on. |
|
 GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3
·Start Communicat..
| said by BTW :This also occurred in Ontario approx 2-3 years later, after the Quebec verdict, when someone tried to sue Dell and Dell has the arbitration clause. The people won (it was a class action I believe against Dell, the ref to both should be on Geists site that I recall). ... and I believe shortly after Ontario actually legislated one's right to take a party to court rather than being forced into binding arbitration despite it stating so in a ToS.
So yeah, this is really a non-issue in Canada despite what happened in the United States. |
|
BTW
@videotron.ca | reply to elwoodblues
ok so the above example aside. Let's look at another privacy issue not mentioned in the ToS's.
Another privacy issue that is not at all evident in ToS's are how some Telco's will install (either factory installed or telco installed) spyware. An example of this is Carrier IQ.
Rogers denied having Carrier IQ installed on their devices (and bragged about being clean on mobilesyrup.com). But, as it turned out, this wasn't true at all and Rogers had to admit Carrier IQ was indeed installed on devices.
Ref:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_IQ···ttention
»www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/30···ing_app/
So, if the CRTC want's people to be aware of everything with very simple words, again this is an opportunity where they have to mandate that if Rogers is going to install/sell spyware & key-loggers on peoples devices, then people should be made aware of this in very easy to understand terms:
Example of what should be said to people who buy a device with a key-logger on it in plain english:
"Rogers had installed a key-logger spyware on your device."
Simple as that.
If it's being shipped on ios devices and Rogers has no control over it then that too needs to be stated:
"ios devices have a key-logger spyware software installed".
Simple as that.
If the CRTC is looking for comments on ToS and wants the public informed and public participation then all should be on the table for people to know and for people to make an informed choice.
Companies shouldn't get away with this, or lie to people by saying something like this isn't installed.
I know I would want my money back from Rogers if I had one of those devices with that installed on it. And the CRTC should make sure there is an avenue for that, or some kind of recourse for people should this happen again. No diff than the Sony Rootkit scandal.
Again, this is just one another issue under the privacy heading of the ToS. |
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | Privacy falls under the Privacy Commissioner's mandate. The CRTC has no role in that. |
|
BTW
@videotron.ca | said by mlerner:Privacy falls under the Privacy Commissioner's mandate. The CRTC has no role in that.
Wrong.
Telecom Act states privacy falls under them for Telecom.
Privacy Commissioner may be the boss heading PrivCom, but the telecom Act clearly states Privacy as it pertains to telecom *also* falls under the jurisdiction of the CRTC.
Privacy Commissioner even stated so to them in writing during the DPI debates when they (the CRTC) told the Privacy Commissioner to reply in writing. You can look this up since it's on public record. |
|
BTW
@videotron.ca | reply to mlerner
From PrivCom to CRTC |
Hope this helps steer you away from thinking the CRTC has nothing to do with privacy.
See screen shot above...
As stated above, this is already on public record that the ACT and their mandate includes privacy and they have an obligation to protect and oversee it in telecom. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to elwoodblues
k so privacy issues aside, there are 10 more area's the CRTC is looking at, bottom of this page » crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2012/r121011.htm. Most of which is already covered by Quebec and Manitoba's new laws: Ref: » web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/39-5/b035e.php» www.heenanblaikie.com/en/publica···?id=1418But there are things I see that no one appears to touch base on. Stuff like, maybe a telco rep calling you before you get a 7,000$ cell bill. Or stuff like where the HTC or Samsung device you have is outdated 6 months into a 3 year contract because Bell Canada has branded software on the device and refuses to upgrade previously installed defective software, or software that upgrades a device for other functionality. The rest of the world gets the manufacturers updates, except for Canadians with branded Bell, Telus or Rogers software. Then the likes of Bell (and all their VP's) will just ignore you, as has happened in the past. People talk a lot about unlocking, but what about de-branding (only de-branded devices tend to get MFG updates/upgrades that the rest of the world has)? Anyone here experience this? Per the CRTC file on all this, they asked the QC gov for input and the QC gov told them we don't care what you do or what codes you put in place, our laws are staying as is for the people and that isn't changing. Manitoba didn't state the same. Makes me wonder if they will scrap their mobile law in favour of this new one in the works. So as a minimum, QC will still have these laws on the books in addition to what the CRTC comes out with. But the CRTC stated they may exclude Quebec from the new code. |
|
| 600-something comments filed with the CRTC so far.
»services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/ListeInt···c&Lang=e |
|
