Comment
@teksavvy.com
| reply to jfmezei
Re: Hands off our network, Bell tells CRTC
said by jfmezei  :So why put a gag order on ISPs on an issue which is and needs to be public ? You answered your own question. The CRTC doesn't have the rigorous "Civil Rules of Procedure" of the courts - Bell can and will use every possible PR trick to influence the outcome. The last thing we want is some ISP to mis-phrase something and give Bell the weapon to kill us. |
|
RogersUser
@rogers.com
| reply to jfmezei
Agree with the person who said before that the CRTC/Gov't should open the borders and allow foreign investors in and see how much Bell and Rogers like it...not only in terms of ISPs but also for TV and cell phones.
As it stands now Canada is a technological backwater in these areas in terms of pricing and choice.
I am all for allowing the market to regulate itself for the most part but only if the market is actually allowed to regulate itself and dictate price and this includes allowing foreign investors and entrepreneurs to pour their money and resources and competition into the Canadian market. |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to NiGHTS
>I agree Arbalister. It is all about public opinion. I never
>said otherwise.
Exactly. This is not a trial. There is no "everything you say from now on can be taken against you" type of thing. CAIP have taken statements from Bell from before the issue, and taken some from after it began. If Bell want to take statements made by Rocky before the issue arose, they can do it.
And since it was the CAIP who made the submission to the CRTC, then the ISPs should be free to continue their PR campaign to ensure politicians remain aware of the issue.
The CRTC will ask Bell to comment on the specific filing made by the CAIP. As long as what ISP's say does not contradict the CAIP statements, there is no reason to have a gag order.
Frankly, I think Rocky knows about the issue far more than the lawyer who crafted the wordy document, so I have no fear that Rocky would contradict anyone in this matter.
The CRTC isn't a court. What CAIP presented will stand on its own, and it won't be debated in a CRTC court with lawyers from both sides bringing in witnesses etc. If lucky, the CAIP will have one chance for rebuttal of Bell's expected wishy washy answer.
When you consider that Bell's answer to the CAIP letter will likely be some wishy washy dismissive letter using words to try to convince the CRTC that Bell should be allowed to mamage its networks the way it wants, the onus will be on the CRTC to make a decision.
And such a decision will be influenced a LOT by the then current public opinion/media coverage/politician pressure. So it is extremely important to keep the public debate up and continue to put pressure on policians so that the CRTC makes a decision against Bell.
The tariffs are public. The CRTC filing is public. And we want our government to be aware of the overall need for net neutrality, as well as this specific case of Bell abusing its monopoly power. So why put a gag order on ISPs on an issue which is and needs to be public ? |
|
NiGHTS
join:2008-03-23 | reply to cacruden
I agree Arbalister. It is all about public opinion. I never said otherwise. |
|
Arbalister
join:2007-11-24
St Catharines, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to NiGHTS
said by NiGHTS :said by ultracat :People, if you want corporate, switch back to Bell or Rogers! Are you serious? That is quite the arrogant attitude. How far do you take this attitude? Do you also do away with lawyers because they are "corporate"? Bell has lots of bullets at their disposal, as should CAIP. CAIP and Teksavvy need to take it to the next level. This cannot be fought by a bunch of geeks on a dslreports forum, that will get written off as 5%. Nights - trust me in this, I've been doing this for 12 years. CAIP and TSI, and little ISPs like mine, haven't got a prayer unless the public outrage continues. This whole throttling things - the fact that Bell swung their bat and connected not just with the indie ISPs that they've been getting away with screwing with for years, but also hitting the CBC, the Heritage Ministry, waking the Micheal Geist lion, hitting for a second time the customers they chased away - who are rightfully indignant that Bell has removed their right to choose better service...
*That* is what's going to win this issue. The groundswell of public opinion against Bell will carry the issue. The CRTC is famous for allowing the status quo to stand..."oh, Bell is doing it already, so we'll allow it...but they can't do *this* again in future..." - crap like that. CAIP can fight a holding action, they might even manage to get the caps lifted for competing ISPs...but for how long? The only way to make this *permanent* is for us to keep the pressure of public opinion firmly against Bell, and directly on top of our MP's and the CRTC. They work better when their jobs are on the line.
Some slick PR guy *aint* gonna sway the issue. |
|
NiGHTS
join:2008-03-23
| reply to ultracat
said by ultracat :People, if you want corporate, switch back to Bell or Rogers! Are you serious? That is quite the arrogant attitude. How far do you take this attitude? Do you also do away with lawyers because they are "corporate"? Bell has lots of bullets at their disposal, as should CAIP. CAIP and Teksavvy need to take it to the next level. This cannot be fought by a bunch of geeks on a dslreports forum, that will get written off as 5%. |
|
ftp1020
join:2007-01-30
Canada
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | reply to ancodia
said by ancodia :I'm all for public awareness but spreading mis-information like this : "let everyone "know" that Deep Packet INSPECTION is looking at their private banking" doesnt help anyone. DPI in no way compromises the security of a SSL link. Oh ... and "5% of users degrade the service for the 95%"? Bell is using professional liars and their media connections to distribute all kinds of half-truths. I say do the same with people whose eyes glaze over as quick as you can say "SSL". PR battles are all about public perception and have very little to do with truth and accuracy. |
|
Comment
@teksavvy.com
| reply to ftp1020
said by ftp1020 :For the rest of us, however, the PR battle goes on Precisely.
If WE say anything that is in error, it is vital that it cannot be ascribed back to the ISPs. So do not expect any "support" or "guidance" from them.
DO NOT LET the necessity for the ISPs to remain silent PREVENT YOU from speaking out LOUDLY to ANYBODY who will listen.
Even if you have to sit on them to make them pay attention.  |
|
ancodia
join:2006-07-10 | reply to ftp1020
I'm all for public awareness but spreading mis-information like this : "let everyone "know" that Deep Packet INSPECTION is looking at their private banking" doesnt help anyone. DPI in no way compromises the security of a SSL link. |
|
ftp1020
join:2007-01-30
Canada
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei :So I do not see why laywyers would instruct the Rocky's of the internet to clam up. Because, like Bell's shareholder statement or Laszlo's comments elsewhere, any subsequent statement might be used by Bell in their defence. CAIP has used Bell's own statements made since the throttling started in their claims against Bell, and it would be foolish to give Bell the same opportunity.
For the ISPs, the PR battle is over and the legal battle has just begun - so let the lawyers do what they know best, in their own arena. For the rest of us, however, the PR battle goes on - let everyone "know" that Deep Packet INSPECTION is looking at their private banking; let everyone "know" that Bell is trying to censor parts of the internet; let everyone "know" that once Bell achieves total monopoly everyone's internet will double in price...
...and then let Bell squirm over the technical merits of such statements. |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to Omr
>Agreed PR firms can go to hell ... all they do is sell lies.
You need to fight fire with fire. I think it is a big mistake for the Rockys of the internet community to "clam up" because this eliminates the PR weapon which is extremely needed at this point in time to keep the politician's focus on the issue. Politicians ride with the wind. The CRTC is influended by what directions politicians are riding in.
Bell's PR machien is strong and can set the wind's direction, especially if everyone else clams up.
Right now, the only thing we, lowly peole, know is that the CIAP says it has submitted a document to the CRTC.
These documents become OFFICIALLY public as soon as they are posted on the CRTC web site. So I do not see why laywyers would instruct the Rocky's of the internet to clam up. This is not a murder trial with a jury being held in private chambers. This is a public debate with our government making a decision on actions taken by Bell.
(I use "Rocky" in this message as a generic name for any ISP owner).
I say thins because the CAIP appears to be a virtual organisation without a working telephone number, so the laxy/lemming media will not go through hoops and loops to try to get the ISP's side of the story if they can't easily reach the CIAP. "The CAIP did not immediatly return our calls" or "The CIAP could not immediatly be reached". (whenever you hear the word "immediatly" in here, it means that the persons they tried to reach didn't call back within 5 minutes. And since rthe CAIP main telephone number in Ottawa doesn't even have an answering machine, the media won't be able to get in touch with anyone there to call them back.
Without a PR effort, it means that the legal arguments will have to be far more potent to force the CRTC to go against the PR winds. It is a real shame because until the ISPs were ordered to clam up, they were starting to shift the win in their direction. But now it will all go back to Bell's direction. |
|
Omr
join:2004-01-10
M1S-1B3 | reply to cacruden
Agreed PR firms can go to hell ... all they do is sell lies. A truely worthy product can sell itself, a horrible service/ product needs a PR team and thats what distinguishes a class act from an imposter. |
|
ultracat
join:2008-01-30
Toronto, ON
·TELUS
·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to NiGHTS
said by NiGHTS :Agreed, having a dedicated and skilled PR person who is truly educated on this subject is an excellent idea. Bell has an army of lobbyists and PR people who are masters at spin. PR is extremely important to your cause, and you don't want to spread yourself too thin. Are you guys joking? You know this whole thing was cracked wide open on this forum by the customers right? It's the customers that are pushing this issue through this forum and with the media. Why? Because Rocky and the gang are real people, running a small business, that we can all relate to. IMO the LAST thing TSI should do is hire some slick PR firm and tuck Rocky and the like away in a corner somewhere never to be heard from again. Rocky's been doing an awesome job, and I think the public is WAY more interested in getting behind the little guy to fight off the big bully. People, if you want corporate, switch back to Bell or Rogers! |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | reply to Maynard G Krebs
There are ridiculously few of those around.
Pulse to Touch Tone is now done electronically and generates DTMF tones anyway. A lot of people with dial lines can still use Touch Tone! |
|
Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com
| reply to ftp1020
Ever wonder why you still pay Bell $2.95 per month for touchtone phone service?
Thirty+ years ago when touchtone was first being rolled out Bell claimed they needed the then $0.75 per month (or whatever was allowed) in order to buy the equipment that could support touchtone and that the only way to make that happen is if there was a charge for it.
Today the now $2.95 (or whatever it is embedded in your bill) is being used - as Bell would like you to believe -- to subsidize the few thousand remaining customers using rotary phone service. Those electomechanical switches from the 1950's take a lot of maintenance. |
|
Stewy
Premium
join:2007-12-12
Kitchener, ON
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei :One must ask the question: What is **REALLY** going on at Bell ? I've been trying to ask that myself.
If anyone believes that this is to help manage the network, they have to get their heads examined.
You don't need to see the virus to know that you have a cold. The same applies here, this is simply punishment for those doing it better than bell.
On top of that I'm willing to bet the house that in the very near future sympatico users are going to see a P2P improvement in their service. |
|
pegasys
@teksavvy.com
| reply to DarkStar33
said by DarkStar33 :Look at them today. They grew there business by innovation. They killed the same businesses that laughed at them at first. Then BCE could use a self-defense plea...LOL
Dinosaurs have no place in the new millenium anyway...
Where's my rifle?(figuratively) |
|
derekm
join:2008-02-26
·TekSavvy Solutions..
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to DarkStar33
said by DarkStar33 :Microsoft, Google and Walmart and "foreign" car manufacturer all started off as small time operations. Look at them today. They grew there business by innovation. They killed the same businesses that laughed at them at first. Microsoft grew their business by years of illegal anti-competitive practices. Same as Bell.
They started off small, granted... But they are finishing big. |
|
DarkStar33
join:2008-03-27
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to En Enfer
Thats part of the overall problem, by preventing small companies from growing where is our next generation of corporations?
Microsoft, Google and Walmart and "foreign" car manufacturer all started off as small time operations.
Look at them today. They grew there business by innovation. They killed the same businesses that laughed at them at first. |
|
En Enfer
This account has been compromised
join:2003-07-25
Montreal, QC
·VIF Internet
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :That list includes ISPs that: 1) Are very small 2) Are resellers of a larger ISP (Montreal-DSL resells TekSavvy). Eliminate those from the list in those two categories Let me remind you that all ISPs do start very small. I found my own notes when I was ISP shopping back in 2001. I wrote that Teksavvy was 30$ with a cap and was a reseller of "1st Access" which itself was 27$ + cap. Obviously, things changed or maybe I was in error back then...
My point being, with those facts, if Bell's stunt would happened 6 years ago, it's like saying "shut up Teksavvy, you're too small, you don't have enough users to give your opinion". I don't think it's fair.
In fact, 3rd party DSL providers need to unite forces somehow to face the beavers. |
|
