resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2014-Oct-6 12:57 pm
Re: ITMP undue preference complaint filed against BellBoth Bell & Videotron filed requests for extension for their filing, due to the hearings the last few weeks. |
|
|
to bklass
said by bklass:Throughout the proceeding, Videotron has been on the fence, stating that it has stopped giving the data cap exemption for some users and intimating that it is considering stopping altogether. With Rogers backing out, and this latest round of interrogatories, I'm hoping that they do the right thing. If they all back out will the CRTC still rule on the matter? |
|
bklass Premium Member join:2012-02-06 Canada |
bklass
Premium Member
2014-Oct-6 4:14 pm
I can't see Bell backing out, they've staked their claim and they are going to carry it to conclusion. |
|
|
|
said by bklass:I can't see Bell backing out, they've staked their claim and they are going to carry it to conclusion. I can see them making a change that is enough to make the issue go away while still getting what they want... like removing the bandwidth exemption and giving a bandwidth credit to offset any usage. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
said by JMJimmy:said by bklass:I can't see Bell backing out, they've staked their claim and they are going to carry it to conclusion. I can see them making a change that is enough to make the issue go away while still getting what they want... like removing the bandwidth exemption and giving a bandwidth credit to offset any usage. That makes some sense because the marginal cost of bandwidth to Bell is essentially zero for each customer at Bell's scale, even if they had to invest a few tens of millions to bump capacity up. |
|
|
to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:I can see them making a change that is enough to make the issue go away while still getting what they want... like removing the bandwidth exemption and giving a bandwidth credit to offset any usage. This mobile TV thing really pisses me off, but I am actually glad it came out. It will hopefully expose Bell to regulators in their bogus and high inflated mobile data charges, and the reality that there is no shortage of capacity on their network: 1) Bell claims that spectrum capacity is in demand and a limited resource.... hence the reasoning for their huge upcharges for usage on data. Then Bell pushes out one of the most spectrum hungry resources. On Bell turbo hub, which uses the same spectrum.... Bell charges $7.00 a gigabyte in usage starting up to 15 gigs then $10.00 a gigabyte in overages. If data spectrum is really that much in demand, and so expensive, why is Bell charging on average $2.13 a gigabyte for their Bell TV using Bell's calculator for mobile video? The markdown for their own data is huge. As it now appears, the true costs of mobile data are shown in their move... likely far less than $2.13 a gigabyte. 2) Bell customers who can't get DSL are forced to a Turbo Hub... Bell decides who gets DSL, and who gets a Turbo Hub through their network upgrade plan. If this isn't an attempt at market manipulation on many aspects, I don't know what is. 3) If wireless spectrum is amongst the cheapest ways to roll out access to voice and/or data, where is this cost savings to the customer? Why does mobile access remain one of the most expensive ways for a customer to get voice and/or data? In short, one company controls far too much of the telecommunications... both medium of provision and content. |
|
bklass Premium Member join:2012-02-06 Canada |
to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:I can see them making a change that is enough to make the issue go away while still getting what they want... like removing the bandwidth exemption and giving a bandwidth credit to offset any usage. In my original submission I suggested that an equitable, lawful way of encouraging customers to use the mobile TV service would be to increase bandwidth caps and allow customers to choose which streaming service to use, separate of the carriage. Bell chose to ignore this suggestion. Let's just say over the course of this past week it became clear to me that we would be seeing this to a decision. |
|
bklass |
to resa1983
Here's a zip of Bell's responses to the September 29 interrogatories. Question #7 will be of particular interest, in which Bell completely ignores the question of "if the 10 hours for 5$ was an ITMP, explain whether it's just or not" |
|
bklass |
to resa1983
Here's Videotron, conveniently in one PDF |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to bklass
Zip is corrupt , I can't extract anything |
|
bklass Premium Member join:2012-02-06 Canada |
bklass
Premium Member
2014-Oct-14 7:33 pm
SORRY. THEY RESENT. ORIGINAL OPENED NO PROB ON MY COMPUTER. CAT HIT CAPS LOCK. CAT LOCK LOL. |
|
|
to bklass
said by bklass:In my original submission I suggested that an equitable, lawful way of encouraging customers to use the mobile TV service would be to increase bandwidth caps and allow customers to choose which streaming service to use, separate of the carriage. I agree totally on that. This is really particular to the people who are stuck on Turbo Hubs as their only available method of getting internet. This sort of content thing REALLY irritates me, as I pay $7 to $10 a Gigabyte usage for content using a Turbo Hub. As per my previous post, Bell likely makes a profit at $2 to $3 a Gigabyte. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee. Premium Member join:2009-06-17 |
to bklass
said by bklass: Question #7 will be of particular interest, in which Bell completely ignores the question of "if the 10 hours for 5$ was an ITMP, explain whether it's just or not" Yeah, whaddaya expect from dem bums? Bell's expecting the CRTC to gloss over that and say it doesn't matter because the CRTC has no power to compel an answer from Bell on that - or anything else (despite the CRTC claiming they have the same powers as a Superior Court). If the CRTC did have those powers, why isn't everyone sworn in - under pain of perjury charges if they lie - during CRTC hearings? What's the CRTC going to do - tickle Dear Leader George Cope, Most Benevolent and Divine - and thereby get him to spill the beans on Question 7? They may as well do that because the CRTC isn't going to hit Bell with a $100MM fine (or any fine) for failing to answer the question. It constantly amazes me how the CRTC finds ways to continually brings the administration of Justice (or anything that they're responsible for) into disrepute. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to bklass
Same problem, maybe DSLR is corrupting it. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2014-Oct-15 9:46 am
Bell sent another one this morning.. I can open it fine with Windows 7 (no zip utility installed). |
|
mr weather Premium Member join:2002-02-27 Mississauga, ON |
Heh, dig how the file name got truncated to have "ass" before the file extension. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to resa1983
Same issue even on my phone |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2014-Oct-15 1:45 pm
All the files in the zip are .doc.. I'm opening them in Word 2010 without problems.. |
|
Teddy Boomk kudos Received Premium Member join:2007-01-29 Toronto, ON |
Both of bklass's files seem to fail on extraction. resa1983's can at least be extracted, but I don't have Word installed at the moment, so I can't actually read them |
|
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa |
sbrook
Mod
2014-Oct-15 2:12 pm
Wow ... Bell dodging the questions any which way they can! Why does one expect anything but?
Mobile TV is a broadcast undertaking, but it isn't really, it's a radiotelecommunications service, but it's a broadcast undertaking but it isn't it's an allowed radiotelecommunications service.
I'm surprised they haven't argued that their other broadcast services aren't radiotelecommunications services and don't require a broadcast license too. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to resa1983
I see bell's ### and raise them ##### |
|
bklass Premium Member join:2012-02-06 Canada |
bklass
Premium Member
2014-Oct-15 7:39 pm
Elwood I can email you the files if you'd like. Just DM me your address or whatever they call private messages on this site. |
|
|
to bklass
Can you post the 2 page of the Quebecor.
I don't have word and on my phone it won't open up.
I am curious as to what comes after: ...sa tarification sera basee |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to bklass
said by bklass:Elwood I can email you the files if you'd like. Just DM me your address or whatever they call private messages on this site. I got'em Ben, I used Resa's post |
|
|
to bklass
Ben, Can you post the second page of that Quebecor letter? |
|
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa |
sbrook
Mod
2014-Oct-19 5:18 pm
download the file posted ... and open it with an image program ... you will have both pages. |
|
|
Thanks sbrook!!!! For some reason, the default was set to notepad. Maybe I did something way back that I don't remember. So I opened it with acrobat and it works. |
|
bklass Premium Member join:2012-02-06 Canada |
to resa1983
Hey folks, This weekend I got the news that Bell is taking the mobile TV decision to federal court. They've filed a "leave to appeal" motion with the Federal Court of Appeals, which has some ahem, interesting things to say about the decision. I'm weighing options at the moment, so I'm somewhat unsure of what I can/should say about this, substantially at least. Anyway, it's happening, and here's the document. PDF pages 9-14 and 279-308 are the meat of it, the rest is mainly documentary evidence comprising filings from the CRTC proceeding. |
|
GuspazGuspaz MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC
1 recommendation |
to resa1983
I strongly suggest that you get in touch with CIPPIC, if you don't have your own lawyer. They can at least point you in the right direction for what your next step would be. They're the closest equivalent we have to a Canadian EFF, and more specifically, they're who the EFF referred me to when I needed some legal advice on digital matters. |
|
|
Bell Canada > the company that takes Canadians that use public methods to court.
Good going Bell Canada makes me want to be your customer even more lol |
|