 hm
@videotron.ca | reply to PIAC copsOUT
Re: The New Wireless Code Hearings. Live Stream @ 9-am Telus stated they make little to no profit for the 35$ they charge people to unlock a phone because it costs them this much for a phone jockey to give you the unlock code and walk you through where to enter the unlock code. |
|
| reply to PIAC copsOUT
They cut it off ...lol Closed Door meetings??? lol |
|
|
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | reply to hm
said by hm :Telus stated they make little to no profit for the 35$ they charge people to unlock a phone because it costs them this much for a phone jockey to give you the unlock code and walk you through where to enter the unlock code.
I could believe that in the case of Apple as I highly doubt Apple doesn't charge for the capability but otherwise that $35 is pure profit unless they overpay for data entry staff. |
|
Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to hm
Please "like" my Comments on Day 1 if you agree with them. 3 key issues the CWTA was misleading the CRTC on.
»consultation.crtc.gc.ca/topic/co···ent-1441 |
|
 mazhurgPremium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB | reply to mlerner
said by mlerner:said by Guspaz:Whatever the CRTC or mlerner think, the CRTC does not have the jurisdiction to overrule Quebec's consumer protection laws.
The CRTC does not create laws. It creates regulation. Regulation cannot supercede laws.
I'm not sure about new regulations but that is not entirely correct. Regulations are a form of law as far as the Federal Government is concerned and the Telecommunications Act does take precedence over provincial as far as I understand. Correction: Regulations derives from law; they cannot override their framework. |
|
| reply to Cloneman
yeah the CWTA dummy explained to the commissioner that unlocking a phone is the same as taking apart your blender and playing with the electrical or machine parts.
What a buffoon. I hope the hell these clueless commissioners didn't fall for that BS. |
|
Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to hm
Or you can watch it here... »www.cpac.ca/eng/direct/cpac2
said by PIACluvsCWTA :yeah the CWTA dummy explained to the commissioner that unlocking a phone is the same as taking apart your blender and playing with the electrical or machine parts. What a buffoon. I hope the hell these clueless commissioners didn't fall for that BS. They did. Listening and watching their facial expressions just before they took their lunch break, they both CRTC personnel and the "public" looked like they had no clue what they were talking about. In the end, CRTC gave them a lunch break to reorganize their thoughts. Then I knew that us Canadians are SOL and will continue to get raped. Only in Canada is rape legal.. |
|
| reply to hm
»consultation.crtc.gc.ca/comment/···ent-1181
I submitted comments to the crtc last week at the link above |
|
 nekkidtruthYou fail at life.Premium
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to hm
As much as I don't like the CRTC, it was refreshing to see them call Telus out on a lot of their policies and terms of service. Even more so when Telus responded with half-assed information. Requiring them to bring numbers and actual statistics to the table rather than their word.
Realistically, I don't even care much for Telus. It's Rogers and Bell whom I can't wait to see through this. I don't know their names (as they barely showed them while I was watching), but the blonde woman with the heavy accent seriously laid the smack down on Telus when they were blubbering and trying to skirt the issue with regards to the Quebec legislation passed. She simply asked how much it cost them and they were all too happy to say "Not much at all!" until she asked if they'd passed the cost on to the consumer. All of sudden their tune changed and they didn't want to give a straight answer and she did not let them slither out so easily.
This is extremely interesting to watch. I was extremely disappointed with some of the claims from Telus and so much miss-information was spewed. Which only heightens my desire to hear Rogers and Bell. We all know their B.S. is going to be notch! 
--
Weeeeeee |
|
mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | reply to mazhurg
said by mazhurg:said by mlerner:said by Guspaz:Whatever the CRTC or mlerner think, the CRTC does not have the jurisdiction to overrule Quebec's consumer protection laws.
The CRTC does not create laws. It creates regulation. Regulation cannot supercede laws.
I'm not sure about new regulations but that is not entirely correct. Regulations are a form of law as far as the Federal Government is concerned and the Telecommunications Act does take precedence over provincial as far as I understand. Correction: Regulations derives from law; they cannot override their framework. I stand corrected but then the having the Provincial policies with the code might end up confusing for the average consumer if both will be in effect. I think there definitely needs to be a Canada wide policy so everyone in every province will know what to expect. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | Day 2. Live Stream Telus just wrapped up this morning (Continued from yesterday).
Next up is supposed to be CIPPIC. See schedule, »www.crtc.gc.ca/telecom/eng/heari···1_02.htm
We will see if CIPPIC is going to be towing the sell-out PIAC party line. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | I believe CIPPIC Just stated that Provincial consumer laws should stay as is in order to further protect people (ie. class actions and more).
Will see if they say more on this matter during the question period. |
|
| reply to Guspaz
Re: The New Wireless Code Hearings. Live Stream @ 9-am said by Guspaz:I'm not aware of anywhere in the telecommunication act that gives the CRTC jurisdiction over provincial consumer protection laws...
Via CARTT.ca
"The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) said it plans to file a legal opinion, commissioned by it and Bell Canada, on March 1 that says telecommunications is an exclusive federal jurisdiction and therefore any provincial legislation is unconstitutional." |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | reply to mlerner
said by mlerner:I stand corrected but then the having the Provincial policies with the code might end up confusing for the average consumer if both will be in effect. I think there definitely needs to be a Canada wide policy so everyone in every province will know what to expect.
We really don't need a Canada-wide policy if that Canada-wide policy is going to take away existing Provincial protections and help the wireless companies screw over consumers.
There is no added confusion to consumers, only providers. Consumers don't know about any the legal stuff behind this anyhow, all they know is what the law makes the carriers put into the contracts.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
| reply to hm
Sorry the consumer protections laws I have enjoyed the last few years in Quebec are fantastic, I would be quite upset if they were overridden to side with corporate interests |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to hm
Re: Day 2. Live Stream Both a Canada wide one and a provincial one can co-exist. I see no confusion. |
|
| I missed most of the Rogers blabbing.
Only caught that they don't want provincial Consumer Protection laws to affect them. They want a watered down Canada wide code that is like what PIAC and the CWTA (industry lobby group) wants. |
|
 elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand | reply to resa1983
Re: The New Wireless Code Hearings. Live Stream @ 9-am Did I read that correctly? They've abandoned the 30 day notice requirement? The proverbial sacrificial lamb. It costs their nothing go do this, but gives the aura of " compromising". |
|
mikee
join:2012-12-21
Gloucester, ON | reply to hm
»www.ctvnews.ca/canada/rogers-urg···.1153533
lol! rogers is so cheap. they dont want to take their hands out of everyones pockets yet xD |
|
| Rogers wants provincial Consumer Protection laws gone so that if they raise rates while you're in a contract they don't get hit with lawsuits.
Rogers states, "this single code in the best interest of consumers". |
|
