The non conformer's Canadian Weblog

November 19, 2014

Canada’s big bad Telecom

bell

 

 I saw Big Telecom’s army of lobbyists, eye to eye, at a hearing last week.   

It was amazing and sickening to hear them argue that Canadians should be blocked from affordable Internet access options.  They are powerful, but we have a new crucial opportunity to fight back. Josh Tabish  OpenMedia

.

Big Telecom plans to use a crucial, rapidly-approaching hearing  to kill indie Internet services in Canada. If successful, they’ll be able to block you from companies offering affordable, next-generation Internet services, and continue to price-gouge Canadians

.

We’re facing a situation where, soon, your only choice could be between price-gouging Big Telecom giants – an unbelievable power grab for Big Telecom.

.

We know that Canadians pay some of the highest prices in the world for some of the worst Internet service.  And a big part this is because Big Telecom has been given gatekeeper powers before…

…a nd abused them.

https://openmedia.org/powergrab/

Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted.  We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.   So the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has to implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.” We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas,” “I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online.” Obama said in a statement released by the White House.  President Obama’s call for “net neutrality” – the notion that any and all content should be treated equally by Internet providers – should cause the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadband service like a utility as a way to protect consumers’ ability to access all content without a threat of connectivity being throttled. Us President Obama called for prohibiting ISPs from blocking or deliberately slowing any legal content. His proposals also include a recommendation to mostly ban paid-for “fast-lane” access, in which a content provider refusing to pay extra would be subject to slower Internet transmission and to  reclassify consumer broadband Internet service and regulate it as if it’s a utility – like electricity and water – as many consumer advocacy groups have asked for a similar strategy to protect unfettered access.  The simple, common-sense  rules include:

  • No blocking.  If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it.  That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
  • No throttling.  Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
  • Increased transparency.  The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. The  FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
  • No paid prioritization.  Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee.  That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth.  An explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/can-bell-do-its-job-and-provide-me-now-their-proper-services/

.

September 6, 2008

appears to be unconcerned by this matter

“Quebec couple battles corporate giant and wins  Canwest News Service 
 
A former Quebec couple has scored a key legal victory for cellphone customers after a judge ruled they were duped into signing three-year contracts with Telus Mobility Inc. with a misleading promotion.Son Le-Tien and Thi Nguyen broke their contracts with Rogers and signed up with Telus after a 2004 promotion promised a free trip for two to a choice of 25 international cities. After discovering not all was as advertised from promotions partner Free Air fare, the Montreal-area couple tried to cancel their contracts.Telus retailer Contact Com DL Communications of Laval, Que., slapped them with penalties totalled of $1,794.72; all Telus contracts stipulate customers must pay $20 per month in penalty fees for every month remaining on a broken contract.When the couple refused to pay, the retailer handed the file over to a collection agency.The couple sued the Telus retailer in small claims court, and just won a key victory that industry watchers say should send a message to wireless phone companies about misleading promotions and about their billing practices.The couple signed up with Telus after they confirmed Sydney, Australia was part of the promotions package put together by the local Telus dealer. But when they tracked down an official with the travel company working out of an apartment building, they were informed Sydney and Asian cities were off limits. In her decision, Micheline Sasseville of the Quebec Court awarded the couple an additional $2,000, “given the seriousness of the violations” and the attitude of the defendant, who ” appears to be unconcerned by this matter.Technology consultant and telecommunication experts Jesse Hirsch says this response speaks volumes about the attitude of the cellphone industry. The outcome of the lawsuit, however, should be a wake-up call to them, he said.”There are so many Canadians who don’t understand the contracts they sign with their wireless providers and the marketing that leads them to sign them is misleading. But people don’t have the time, money and courage to fight back,” said Hirsch.”It shows that when people fight back, they win, but what a hassle.”

Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce law at the University of Ottawa added: “The bigger issue here is it places the spotlight on these long-term contracts, which are becoming enormously problematic . . . It may embolden other consumers to similarly take action in this instance.”” 
 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 
Sadly this practice of false, misleading adverting is too often had even been done by some Internet service providers who also were, are  appears to be “unconcerned by this matter” and due to the millions of consumer involved the governments themselves should firstly step in, regulate and enforce the matters.. not the courts.
do see also
http://postedat.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/and-i-used-to-think-that-politicians-were-big-liars/
 
do see also https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/apple-mr-jobs-has-admitted-privacy-invasion-iphone/

Blog at WordPress.com.