dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14
share rss forum feed

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

2 edits
reply to the cerberus

An Open Letter to the CRTC

said by the cerberus:

said by milnoc:

My biggest worry is that the participants will still not be under oath. Anyone can lie to the Commission and get away with it. And it's not beneath anyone participating in these hearings to lie in order to win their case.
You'd think something like this would get approved. Otherwise it blatantly looks like they have something to hide. Also the fact that the providers (Rogers, Bell, etc.) were against this is disturbing, they are basically complaining about their right to lie and withhold information. However it's not surprising, its almost typical, a fair and transparent hearing would be too easy.
----------------

How about a letter campaign directly to the CRTC from 10,000 concerned citizens?

Something like the following words:

In prior hearings and submissions by Bell regarding throttling, usage-based billing, net neutrality, and equal speed access, the citizens of Canada and the CRTC have been treated with misinformation, false information, incomplete information, innudendo, false characterization, and contempt by Bell.

Canadians are tired of corporate interests running roughshod over a process which DEMANDS complete disclosure to ensure that decisions are not made in a vacuum with a paucity of facts or indeed alleged facts; that those decisions are made with the interests of adequate competition in Canada; and that the companies making representations before the Commission are prepared to do so in all honesty, without shading the facts, and under the potential penalty of perjury and massive financial penalties for presenting false or misleading information.

Decisions made by the CRTC in the ADSL-CO matter will colour the telecommunications landscape in Canada for years and may well drive independent ISP's out of business. It is for this reason that all testimony before the Commission be made as reliable as it can be.

In the interests of propriety in this matter and to ensure that the CRTC does not fall into further disrepute, I respectfully request that the CRTC require all participants in the upcoming ADSL-CO hearings to give their testimony and all written submissions under oath.


Signed: ( your name here )

cc: Your MP's name here

cc: The editorial departments of
The Toronto Star
The Globe & Mail
The National Post
Montreal Gazette
Ottawa Citizen
etc.....

the cerberus

join:2007-10-16
Richmond Hill, ON

3 edits
The whole point of the hearings is to clear up what is written in the submissions, in case the CRTC is unclear of something in the submission, or another party has an opposing view.
This whole process is being dragged out by the CRTC saying no, but write it down and we'll look over further arguments later. If we could get to the bottom of this whole thing under oath, now, one would think that would solve the problem and not need to further waste the CRTC's precious time.
It seems like someone has something to hide.

freejazz_RdJ

join:2009-03-10
kudos:1
The issue with an oral cross exam under oath is that it bears a substantial risk for those with proprietary information that could be used by competitors to the detriment of those under examination. It also has limited value overall since the considerations I think are largely technical with a subset of issues being the costs of implementation of a solution.

I'm not entirely sure what value it has either. What kind of questions did they intend to ask that require an answer from the other party under oath? Every single one I can think of would be competitively sensitive information, which they don't have to provide anyways. If they lie about something technical, then it's easy to refute that, but I don't think the providers are lying at CRTC hearings. A lie and a difference in opinion are two different matters... Bell isn't lying when they blame all their congestion woes on P2P, they're just stating their belief.


milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2
said by freejazz_RdJ:

The issue with an oral cross exam under oath is that it bears a substantial risk for those with proprietary information that could be used by competitors to the detriment of those under examination. It also has limited value overall since the considerations I think are largely technical with a subset of issues being the costs of implementation of a solution.

I'm not entirely sure what value it has either. What kind of questions did they intend to ask that require an answer from the other party under oath? Every single one I can think of would be competitively sensitive information, which they don't have to provide anyways. If they lie about something technical, then it's easy to refute that, but I don't think the providers are lying at CRTC hearings. A lie and a difference in opinion are two different matters... Bell isn't lying when they blame all their congestion woes on P2P, they're just stating their belief.
A belief has no legal or scientific value. I want to see the evidence indicating P2P is causing congestion, and I want the participants to be under oath when they answer the question. If a company is saying one thing, but the evidence is indicating something entirely different, then to me that company is lying.

We already have one Commissioner who firmly believes congestion exists despite all the third-party evidence that indicates the contrary. The evidence that was presented to him in secret made him believe this, and no one was given the opportunity to refute those claims because no one was given access to this information.

For the hearings process to properly become fair and balanced, the CRTC must start ignoring any and all evidence that is filed in confidence. Any evidence that can't be properly cross examined by third parties must must be rejected in all decision makings.

The current CRTC process is no better than the process that surrounds security certificates where the accused isn't even allowed to see the evidence being used against them.

We need to eliminate miscarriages of justice, not encourage them.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com (click "Watch Live!")