dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7
share rss forum feed


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to rocca

Re: BAD NEWS? Not clear about data retention times.

said by rocca:

Whew, I was starting to get worried that any of this was based on fact.

Nah, just the two Michael Geist article's that were referenced in the post that you selectively forgot to make reference to or speak about.

*taps foot and awaits an answer to the two articles since you are indeed CNOC regulatory*

Seriously? It's the first you hear r read of these two articles?

Then who at CNOC is involved with it if you know nothing about it?

Would it be Bill and only Bill?

I find it kind of odd that you never heard of the "secret working group" (as written about by Geist) who represents an entire industry.

But since you claim to know nothing, feel free to find out about it from Bill and Geist and fill us in. Thanks.

And maybe you might might to ask why CNOC regulatory and all it's member know nothing as well.

Very odd indeed....

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2
CNOC being involved in those talks was one of two options - be involved in the discussions and have some say/input or don't be involved at all. Being part of the working group did not mean they supported anything, it just meant they were there. The major ISP's won't see any issue with these measures since they can afford to put them in place. IISP's will not be as quick to welcome additional costs.


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
reply to hm
I assure you that CNOC has not provided support/backing of C-30. An individual who attends a meeting doesn't mean support by that person nor an organization they are involved with.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Samgee
said by Samgee:

CNOC being involved in those talks was one of two options - be involved in the discussions and have some say/input or don't be involved at all. Being part of the working group did not mean they supported anything, it just meant they were there. The major ISP's won't see any issue with these measures since they can afford to put them in place. IISP's will not be as quick to welcome additional costs.

Are you involved in this CNOC "secret working group" who wants your facebook posts? If not, then I would prefer that Rocca, CNOC regulatory, answer it instead of uninvolved people with no clue making excuses for them. No offense intended. Just being honest.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to rocca
said by rocca:

I assure you that CNOC has not provided support/backing of C-30.

Then why does Dr Michael Geist say otherwise?

Who is representing CNOC at these "secret working group" meetings? As CNOC regulatory, surely you must know. So do you mind telling us who it is? Is it Bill?

And yes, as an industry group CNOC represent you, Mr. Start Communications. As well as Mr. Teksavvy.

Unless you come out with some sort of press release on CNOC's webpage stating which ISP you are and detest what CNOC (you) are coming out in favour of, as written about by Dr. Geist.

Just saying...


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
As much as I like Geist if he said CNOC supports C-30 he's wrong.


hm

@videotron.ca
said by rocca:

As much as I like Geist if he said CNOC supports C-30 he's wrong.

Well, since you are CNOC regulatory, I will contact him and tell him what he wrote is wrong and all a lie. We do talk on occasion... (as you do).

Will be interesting what he replies with.

Will CNOC regulatory write him as well and say what he wrote is not true, as I will?

Will CNOC (who represents you (Start) and Teksavvy and many others) post this on their CNOC webpage? Or just pretend it doesn't exist (as your first reply to me)? I think you should because, let's face it, Dr, Geist wrote it. And Dr. Geist has a huge following.

Or maybe CNOC regulatory is just playing dumb and calling Dr. Geist a lier just because Dr. Geist made them look bad by reporting how CNOC is supporting all this?

I mean, there are a couple of ways to look at this. Don't you agree?

Or do you still wish to say:
said by rocca:

Whew, I was starting to get worried that any of this was based on fact.

I mean, which is it?

Is Dr. Geist is on acid and a paranoid quack? Seems to me you are saying this, Rocca.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to rocca
rocca,

All these political issues aside (or the "wrongness" of the reporting aside, whatever it may be), Thanks for being open, honest, playing here, and replying to a nobody like me.

I appreciate it, and I'm sure others reading/following this appreciate it as well.

I respect that. As I'm sure others do.

For what it's worth (and maybe this may sound wrong, or come across wrong), you have the makings of another Rocky if you let your attitude show more.

However, as CNOC regulatory, I think you (as CNOC) have some explaining to do, as an industry group, to the people here in regards to all this.

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2
reply to hm
said by hm :

Are you involved in this CNOC "secret working group" who wants your facebook posts? If not, then I would prefer that Rocca, CNOC regulatory, answer it instead of uninvolved people with no clue making excuses for them. No offense intended. Just being honest.

No offense taken, and I find your comment about having no clue to be enjoyably ironic.


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
reply to hm
I'm assuming you're referring to »www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6505/135/

"The secret working group is designed to create an open channel for discussion between telecom providers and government. As the uproar over Bill C-30 was generating front-page news across the country, Bell reached out to government to indicate that "it was working its way through C-30 with great interest" and expressed desire for a meeting to discuss disclosure of subscriber information. A few weeks later, it sent another request seeking details on equipment obligations to assist in its costing exercises."

Or, without the sensationalism perhaps:

"Telecom companies concerned with potential legislation meet with government to discuss those concerns and clarify the technical impact to their networks and the associated costs of such"

...but that doesn't sound nearly as cool as 'secret working group'.

I do however take offence to your severe twist of my statements saying that I've called Dr. Geist a 'liar' or implying he is a 'paranoid quack'. -- I said (quoting): "if he said CNOC supports C-30 he's wrong". I have a great respect for Michael and being wrong about something doesn't make someone a liar nor do I see anywhere that explicitly says that CNOC agrees with the bill. I don't know what the sources were for that article, nor if the term 'providing support for the bill' was meant in the same way that 'providing required technical costing information for the bill' could be used interchangeably, but speaking as a member of CNOC I can say that we as an organization have not backed the bill. Full stop.

I know that when CNOC was formed there was much original scepticism here on DSLR, but over the past year I feel we really have proved ourselves to be a respectable organization which has made a positive difference to the industry. That said, I'm not the person to speak on behalf of CNOC itself, so if you want to ask Mr. Sandiford something directly then I suggest you reach out to him.


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
reply to Samgee
+1

Who7

join:2012-12-18
reply to rocca
said by rocca:

As much as I like Geist if he said CNOC supports C-30 he's wrong.

If you don't support it, then do what you need to do to declaw it.

Let's face it, you can be the most honest and most concerned CEO in the industry, but once you are hit and you have no legal recourse to protect your customers, then you will be targeted for bad publicity and anger. People will seek other providers even if there is no difference in substance.

In fact, the other consideration may turn out to be that the big boys have the re$ource$ to legally intimidate the smaller right holders. Even if there is a uniform legal retention period, their perceived "muscle" would swing in their favor.

As one businessman to another, you want this to go away or declawed. It will only make your life far more difficult.....potentially existential to your business.