|
to MaynardKrebs
Re: ITMP undue preference complaint filed against Bellsaid by MaynardKrebs:Maybe the Feds will suspend the 700MHz auction too. :-( Doubt that. But never know! I just don't see why PIAC is starting a stink-fest with the CRTC and Ben Klass. They just gave Ben another face-push with their filings and more or less said, "step aside son, this is for us highly paid big boys". PIAC is really pissing me off. Seems to me they aren't bringing that much more to the table either. Ben already covered lots of it, and Ben (based on what I saw to date) has a firmer grasp on the situation and a better understanding of it. The only thing I can truly make out coming out of PIAC is that they are using the CRTC and *any* filing (and pushing people out of the way) in order to claim costs. In other words, they are using the CRTC for anything possible to file for their $20K cost awards. And they will try to take over Ben's file to get that money. This is the only damn thing I can see from this. Someone tell me i'm wrong. |
|
shrugs |
shrugs to HiVolt
Anon
2014-Jan-17 11:15 am
to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:Jeez, what does it mean? Means everything is on hold till the CRTC decides what to do because PIAC wants Ben's filing quashed and Ben removed from having the last word. Not only that, but PIAC wants "cost awards". PIAC is doing their best to toss Ben aside and take over the show for money. |
|
PCP @videotron.ca |
PCP
Anon
2014-Jan-19 12:58 pm
BTW, does anyone have a link to the telecom ACT (and/or broadcasting ACT) or CRTC rules on what happens when an entity comprised of lawyers tries to take over a CRTC file made by a member of the public?
I never read up on the ACT, rules, and procedures that much as it pertains to when someone starts a file there and it gets hijacked by corporate entities looking to cash in. I can't seem to find anything on the CRTC website either in regards to this.
Anyone have a link they can drop? |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2014-Jan-24 9:04 am
I doubt there'd be anything in the Telecom ACT, as I do believe that's from parliament.
As for CRTC rules... Doubtful. CRTC never intended the public get involved as they have lately, so its highly unlikely there's anything on the books on "what to do if lawyers screw the public for cash". |
|
|
Anon to PCP
Anon
2014-Jan-24 10:09 am
to PCP
Links to the Telecom Act and the Rules can be found on the CRTC web site under "Statutes and Regulations". |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to shrugs
said by shrugs :said by MaynardKrebs:Maybe the Feds will suspend the 700MHz auction too. :-( Doubt that. But never know! I've spent the better part of a day on the Industry Canada web site looking for the rules of the auction - not the stuff about Blocks and guard bands, or geographic considerations. I've been looking for the very basic stuff that any sane auction would say - like, "The highest, or any bid, may not be accepted, at the sole discretion of the Government." Or, "This auction may be cancelled or suspended at any time prior to payment for the spectrum block(s)." I couldn't find any such verbiage, anywhere. Neither could the guys here: Industry Canada Web Services Centre Telephone (toll-free in Canada): 1-800-328-6189 Telephone (Ottawa): 613-954-5031 Fax: 613-954-2340 TTY (for hearing-impaired): 1-866-694-8389 Business hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) But they did give me the direct telephone number to the people running the auction. I can't decide whether I want to throw up on a full or empty stomach. Once I do, I'll either eat first and then call, or just call. |
|
|
MaynardKrebs |
to resa1983
I gotta wonder that if I were a US pension fund, owning say 5% of Bell, and the Canadian government cancelled the 700MHz auction - whether I could sue for lost profits/etc... under Chapter 11 of NAFTA. It would make an interesting case, potentially worth billions. » www.state.gov/s/l/c3439.htm |
|
bklass Premium Member join:2012-02-06 Canada |
to MaynardKrebs
Believe it or not, after a lot of time on the CRTC website, I'm actually starting to find it quite manageable (there's a method to the madness...) Can't say the same about IC's SITT portal, and the "Spectrum Direct" website is an absolute nightmare. You may have better luck finding what you're looking for in the Radiocommunications Act and regulations, if it's the most general type of info you're after, that is. » laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· ext.html |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to MaynardKrebs
Not sure it it would apply, what has it cost Bell? (this is the auction proper, nothing do with the day to day business of bell).
Chapter 11 was designed that when a govt rule, law or regulation impair your business. It all depends how the rules are worded. Can IC cancel, suspend or refuse all bids? |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
said by elwoodblues:Not sure it it would apply, what has it cost Bell? (this is the auction proper, nothing do with the day to day business of bell).
Chapter 11 was designed that when a govt rule, law or regulation impair your business. It all depends how the rules are worded. Lost profits/lost market value/lower stock price/lower dividends = loss to investor said by elwoodblues:Can IC cancel, suspend or refuse all bids? That's what I'm trying to find out. |
|
|
Acid Drip to bklass
Anon
2014-Jan-24 10:36 pm
to bklass
said by bklass:Believe it or not, after a lot of time on the CRTC website, I'm actually starting to find it quite manageable (there's a method to the madness...) There we go. Ben either drank Bell's kool-aid or he's losing it from spending too much time studying CRTC decisions. I find the CRTC website the worst site I have ever been on. But there was this one time, after a Black Sabbath concert, where my Indian spirit guide told me where to find a CRTC decision, But no need to get into that here. Ben, take this weekend off. Rest a bit. BTW, where did they move your and PIAC's filing to? I haven't been able to find them. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2014-Jan-24 11:25 pm
They've temporarily suspended them, so they're in the Part 1 Closed for Comments section. » services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/ ··· Lang=engAfter a long while of use, you do get used to wear things can be found. Also, you learn never to use their own search bar - google's is better. Either way it doesn't matter.. They're working on the rewrite, and that includes getting the public's suggestions on how this could be more open and accessible to those who aren't lawyers for incumbents. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17
1 recommendation |
Suggestions: a) Don't hold hearings in that intellectual backwater called Ottawa/Gatineau. b) Put the real issue on the table - functional separation.
|
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2014-Jan-31 3:06 pm
CRTC's just decided what's going to happen with the 3 applications. All 3 are being merged and they're bringing the Broadcast act into it (was just Telecom before), as there may be findings for both Acts. quote: Parties may file interventions, or in the case of interventions already filed under the Klass application, supplementary interventions, by 5 March 2014. The Commission intends to issue requests for information in the form of interrogatories by 4 April 2014. Responses to such requests are to be filed by 25 April 2014. All parties may file reply comments by 12 May 2014.
|
|
rosenqui Premium Member join:2004-05-28 Kanata, ON |
rosenqui
Premium Member
2014-Jan-31 4:10 pm
What a joke...
While this is probably the right way to handle the situation, it has the effect of delaying any resolution until the summer. The last set of reply comments isn't due until the middle of May, so we'll be lucky to see any sort of decision by mid summer or even fall given how slowly the CRTC moves.
In the meantime, the telcos get away with giving their video traffic special treatment. It would have been nice to see a preliminary ruling that would force them to treat their own video traffic like regular data. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2014-Jan-31 4:53 pm
said by rosenqui:What a joke...
While this is probably the right way to handle the situation, it has the effect of delaying any resolution until the summer. The last set of reply comments isn't due until the middle of May, so we'll be lucky to see any sort of decision by mid summer or even fall given how slowly the CRTC moves.
In the meantime, the telcos get away with giving their video traffic special treatment. It would have been nice to see a preliminary ruling that would force them to treat their own video traffic like regular data. Actually, considering they've expanded this to include the Broadcasting Act as well, chances are things won't be looking good for the big 3. Bell for example will have to refile their intervention, and can't claim that this falls under the Broadcasting Act, and it doesn't apply - since the CRTC brought the Broadcasting Act into play. |
|
|
Needles
Anon
2014-Jan-31 5:18 pm
Watch Super Bowl XLVIII live on the go with Bell Mobile TV » www.newswire.ca/en/story ··· obile-tv All viewers of the Super Bowl in Canada will also be the first to see the lead advertisement in Bell's extensive multimedia marketing campaign for the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games.
"Only Bell lets you watch the Super Bowl wherever you are, and the big game has consistently been the most-watched program on our Mobile TV service each year. Now more Canadians than ever have on-the-go access to the biggest TV event in North America with Bell Mobile TV," said Wade Oosterman, President of Bell Mobility and Residential Services, and Chief Brand Officer at Bell. "Bell is proud to be a leader in bringing innovative wireless services like Mobile TV to Canadians on the world's best 4G networks - and that's a message you'll see delivered during our Olympic media campaign that debuts on Super Bowl Sunday."
...
10 hours of Bell Mobile TV viewing is available as part of many Bell Mobility plans or as a $5 a month add-on, which will not impact a customer's data allotment in their plan. I think this is an, "IN YOUR FACE", moment. |
|
Needles |
Needles to rosenqui
Anon
2014-Jan-31 6:27 pm
to rosenqui
said by rosenqui:While this is probably the right way to handle the situation, it has the effect of delaying any resolution until the summer. Basically, yes. Could quite easily hit fall and winter if more regulatory red tape is tossed in by Bell et al, or even next year if they decide they don't like something and decide to hit GiC. Has the potential to play out for a full year. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to rosenqui
said by rosenqui:What a joke...
In the meantime, the telcos get away with giving their video traffic special treatment. It would have been nice to see a preliminary ruling that would force them to treat their own video traffic like regular data. No matter how this turns out, tens or hundreds of thousands of Bell customers will have locked themselves into Bell for two more years - in part based on Bell's self-administered "undue preference". So Bell wins no matter what happens - a) they've locked in customers who could have switched to a competitor for cheaper rates b) they've screwed competitors through the bogus rate differential c) they've gamed the system and in bad faith screwed everyone What the CRTC should have also done is voided any contracts signed by consumers for service from Bell starting from the date of Klass's initial filing until 60 days after the final decision in this crap is rendered - to give those suckers who signed up with Bell for this BS time to reconsider their options once a final decision has been rendered. These customers should be treated as month-to-month and NOT be required to pay any termination penalty whatsoever (contract for service or handset) if they switch from Bell during the 60 day period after the decision is released). I think JF & I should mount a hostile takeover of the CRTC and get some functional separation happening. |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada |
Any update on how all of this is going ? |
|
|
shrugs
Anon
2014-Mar-2 12:30 pm
Think next week is deadline to submit answers. Then we get to giggle as the CRTC rules in favour of Bell's discrimination. Then they will explain to us how Bell's wireless waves are different than wireless waves from netflix due to bell's originating as internal traffic which is separate from any other traffic. Or some sort of monkey boy reply like that. It will be as stated on page 1: » Re: ITMP undue preference complaint filed against Bell |
|
bklass Premium Member join:2012-02-06 Canada |
to Davesnothere
Hey, the next round of comments is due this coming Wednesday, March 5th. It's open to new parties and will include at least Rogers and Videotron. I'm thinking about filing something too |
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
|
The Day to bklass
Anon
2014-Mar-5 5:26 pm
to bklass
Re: ITMP undue preference complaint filed against Bellsaid by bklass:Hey, the next round of comments is due this coming Wednesday, March 5th. It's open to new parties and will include at least Rogers and Videotron.
I'm thinking about filing something too Today is the day. If to get/see anything please be so kind as to upload whatever it is you got your hands on. TY in advance. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2014-Mar-5 8:38 pm
I guess I'll upload my own & Ben's. Haven't checked Ben's yet. Mine is short & sweet. I know JF also filed.. Other than a quick email from him about how I was fast getting my email out, I haven't gotten anything. |
|
|
le hm
Anon
2014-Mar-5 8:39 pm
jf's was uploaded. waiting for approval to show, or something. TY for sharing those. |
|
le hm |
le hm to resa1983
Anon
2014-Mar-5 8:54 pm
to resa1983
oh I like yours Resa. 5C is sweet But, you know... one day, eventually, those caches are updated, thus 10$/gig applies per person. For Videotron, as far as I know, and per a telephone conversation i had with them about their cap, the fair-use cap/throttle-thing *only* applies to their unlimited service. If one does not submit to the over-priced unlimited service and just buys a regular data package(s) and 30-hrs of time, there is *NO* cap. No throttle. No fair use AUP. That AUP is restricted to the unlimited service only from what they told me. Unless they changed in the past month or so. So in effect: buy unlimited so you can watch netflix = fair use policy Don't buy expensive unlimited, and buy heavily discounted videotron mobileTV = No fair use policy. See a difference? So this is in addition to what you stated. ...But... this is because mobileTV time incurs zero data usage. Time for a vodka milkshake. I like yours. On to the Klass filing. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2014-Mar-5 8:59 pm
The Fair Use policy angle came to me last week, but I figured someone else had done it already. Ben told me nobody had taken that angle, so I figured what the hell. Suffice to say, its harder to write such a little amount as I did, because I kept trying to expand it to other things, and kept smacking myself going "NO. Its been covered, and covered better than you can." |
|
|
The Day to The Day
Anon
2014-Mar-5 9:52 pm
to The Day
Vaxination's submission It is unrealistic for the Commission to hide the problem under the rug by categorizing this internet data as "broadcasting" and implicitly or explicitly allow this incumbents' preference onto themselves.Seems the CRTC's latest TV survey also falls in line with Bells, Rogers and Videotrons undue preference here. |
|
bklass Premium Member join:2012-02-06 Canada |
to resa1983
Here's David Ellis, PIAC, Rogers, and Videotron |
|