Glen Head, NY
| |said by Devanchya:Only for civil cases, not criminal cases. Criminal code is uniform throughout Canada (which is a hell of a lot better than what we have here in the United States). The rest of Canada and the United States is derived from English Common Law. Quebec is derived from Code NapolÃ©on.
It's only in Quebec, because it's a Civil case, which is not possible outside of Quebec in Canada.
Quebec has a completely different legal system than the rest of Canada and the US.
Re: Waste of time; lawsuit can't beat legal muscle of Bell
said by FFH:what ever happened to honest to god politics? it makes me ill to think how judges and DA's and etc can be bought. guess it just goes to show how morally bankrupt the world is these days.
The lawsuit won't get very far - even in Quebec. Bell has too much money and legal muscle for it to succeed. If they have to they will just buy the usual corrupt judges in Quebec.
then again, isnt that illegal? i know somewhere on this planet it has to be xD.
said by lrtc6:Because Rogers isn't available in Quebec.
Why just bell I mean rogers does it to?
Re: Contradiction? what is of significant importance is bell is deciding that bittorrent traffic is not as high a priority as other traffic. what's being fought for is to keep telecom companies from prioritizing traffic based on it's content.
they also have bandwidth caps ontop of this.
said by amigo_boy:
I don't understand the part about throttling being inconsistent with constant speed guarantees. If my ISP guaranteed constant speed, to me that would mean making sure some users don't consume all the bandwidth. It would imply throttling to me. Not unlimited bandwidth.
said by Roop:It still seems like a stretch to say throttling is inconsistent with guaranteed constant speed. If my ISP made that promise, I would assume this means they are going to throttle things so everyone can have constant speeds.
what is of significant importance is bell is deciding that bittorrent traffic is not as high a priority as other traffic.
Also, throttling BT doesn't seem earth shattering to me. If a bunch of people were using http to download files in a batch-like manner, I'd expect it to be lower priority. If they're serving packets they received, I could see even greater reason to throttle it.
If people oppose this, that's ok. But, using "constant speed" as the argument doesn't seem to be the issue. It looks more like they want batch, non-interactive services to be as fast as interactive. And, they want to perform server operations.
Re: Boy are you guys stupid
said by chronoss2008:You guys have been tainted by your American neighbors, who use civil suits to accomplish political goals.
I am going to call the number will you?