dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1
share rss forum feed


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to rocca

Re: BAD NEWS? Not clear about data retention times.

said by rocca:

As much as I like Geist if he said CNOC supports C-30 he's wrong.

Well, since you are CNOC regulatory, I will contact him and tell him what he wrote is wrong and all a lie. We do talk on occasion... (as you do).

Will be interesting what he replies with.

Will CNOC regulatory write him as well and say what he wrote is not true, as I will?

Will CNOC (who represents you (Start) and Teksavvy and many others) post this on their CNOC webpage? Or just pretend it doesn't exist (as your first reply to me)? I think you should because, let's face it, Dr, Geist wrote it. And Dr. Geist has a huge following.

Or maybe CNOC regulatory is just playing dumb and calling Dr. Geist a lier just because Dr. Geist made them look bad by reporting how CNOC is supporting all this?

I mean, there are a couple of ways to look at this. Don't you agree?

Or do you still wish to say:
said by rocca:

Whew, I was starting to get worried that any of this was based on fact.

I mean, which is it?

Is Dr. Geist is on acid and a paranoid quack? Seems to me you are saying this, Rocca.


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23

I'm assuming you're referring to »www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6505/135/

"The secret working group is designed to create an open channel for discussion between telecom providers and government. As the uproar over Bill C-30 was generating front-page news across the country, Bell reached out to government to indicate that "it was working its way through C-30 with great interest" and expressed desire for a meeting to discuss disclosure of subscriber information. A few weeks later, it sent another request seeking details on equipment obligations to assist in its costing exercises."

Or, without the sensationalism perhaps:

"Telecom companies concerned with potential legislation meet with government to discuss those concerns and clarify the technical impact to their networks and the associated costs of such"

...but that doesn't sound nearly as cool as 'secret working group'.

I do however take offence to your severe twist of my statements saying that I've called Dr. Geist a 'liar' or implying he is a 'paranoid quack'. -- I said (quoting): "if he said CNOC supports C-30 he's wrong". I have a great respect for Michael and being wrong about something doesn't make someone a liar nor do I see anywhere that explicitly says that CNOC agrees with the bill. I don't know what the sources were for that article, nor if the term 'providing support for the bill' was meant in the same way that 'providing required technical costing information for the bill' could be used interchangeably, but speaking as a member of CNOC I can say that we as an organization have not backed the bill. Full stop.

I know that when CNOC was formed there was much original scepticism here on DSLR, but over the past year I feel we really have proved ourselves to be a respectable organization which has made a positive difference to the industry. That said, I'm not the person to speak on behalf of CNOC itself, so if you want to ask Mr. Sandiford something directly then I suggest you reach out to him.