My point about the CRTC motions being “more than sufficient” had to do with the fact that they TOOK ACTION - something we all could very well be grateful for in the end. And, that action has helped cause 3 key concerns (competition, privacy, and net neutrality) to become very public. I’m starting to see even the mainstream media covering it.

Certainly, it would have been nice if CAIP’s customers got more info sooner, but, we have to remember that the resellers providing their service were victims of something they were still assessing just as complaints started to come in.

I’m sure CAIP providers wanted to KNOW more about what was happening, and what their options were, and what, exactly, to say to their customers, before coming off with “unhelpful” answers. Many people left Bell to get away from that kind of BS.

I’m sure, if I was one of those customers, I would have appreciated that.

As to a “nationally funded network”…
How can you replace Bell with something it’s ALREADY SUPPOSED TO BE??
Yes, public money built it, and the CRTC rules laid out for it stated that profits earned were supposed to go into maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure. And, with the mandated 3rd Party access, that was supposed to create and guarantee competition, without having “multiple infrastructures” being built all over the place.

I don’t know if the “deregulation” move some ten years ago changed any part of the profit management agreement. If so, then it should have been incumbent upon the CRTC to BETTER SEPARATE the “internet provider”, the “phone company” and the “satellite TV provider”, and either keep the “internet provider” from becoming a CONTENT provider, or not allow the “internet provider” to become deregulated.

Instead, we ended up with multiple “Bell Companies”, all allowed to operate both “independently” and “collectively”, as chosen by Bell in each and every case to suit its own agenda. That was clearly wrong.

Bell has clearly violated a number of current CRTC restrictions, as well as a number of laws pertaining to Fair Competition, Privacy, and Common Carrier Rules. It’s reasonable to assume Bell has cut its own throat in its wish to be the Gods of the Internet.

Perhaps we will be thanking Bell when all the dust has settled, as their moves may have been instrumental in forcing these issues to be reviewed BEFORE we find ourselves with a corporately-owned, MAFIAA-sponsored, 2-tiered Internet.

Are you really this naive or are you a clever troll? I can’t believe someone would seriously think this to be a good idea.

Elimination of these unwilling to invest; self serving; oppressive; privacy invading “wha wha” cry babies. It’s time for change, and I’m sick of all these crappy ISPs, they can’t regulate themselves or do a satisfactory job. It’s time to take the network national and make it free (taxpayers) for all.

I don’t see a need for ISPs anyway, they are just middle men controlling the network which should belong to all of us; they confuse, complicate, and frustrate the process of connecting to servers around the world. After all, all you really need is a few dns servers and you are good to go

How many things get submitted to the CRTC that YOU are aware of? “more than sufficient” , I think not.

On the other hand, CAIP’s motions to the CRTC, along with their openness to the public on the issues, could qualify as “more than sufficient” on their part. The fact that the resellers were already “under siege”, and initially having to assess what was actually happening to them and their ability to deliver service, makes any delay to informing their customers more than forgivable.

I find it interesting (well, not really), that, as it stands right now, if Canada Post were to be opening envelopes to determine if mail should be blocked from its destination (perhaps a new policy to “deter the sending of counterfeit CDs”), every faucet of the Privacy Commission would be all over them! (Not to mention how much longer it would take to get that mail out, with the inspection process to pass.)

As far as I’m concerned, UNREGULATED providers should NEVER have been allowed to even toy with the idea of providing their own content in the first place. It defies logic and common sense.

Open packets, in any manner, and interfering with the flow of these packets, are 2 activities that are SUPPOSED TO BE ILLEGAL for a provider to engage in, and also in violation of the “Common Carrier” rules.

Bell admitted nothing.

Also, the notice was passed on to 3rd party ISP’s, many of whom also did not officially notify their own customers.

Bell never informed its own customers to this day!

The only people aware are those who frequent broadband or P2P type forums, or those who understood what they read in newspaper as Bell was spinning stuff that wasn’t true.

So TELL ME, who did they inform again?

ty
:p