Of ’shadowy whispered tales’: fixing the CRTC
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- In our post on CAIP’s reaction to the announcement that Bell Canada has been ordered by the CRTC to pick up most of the $40,000 in costs awarded to the Quebec Union des Consommateurs, Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) and Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) in the ongoing trafgic throttling war between Bell and its customers, we mentioned Leonard Katz.
CAIP is short for Canadian Association of Internet Providers, CRTC = Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and the latter says the former will have to pay 20% of the award.
The CRTC it made the decision because it wanted the share allocated to CAIP to be “”meaningful”.
We went on »»»
Financially, the decision will mean absolutely nothing to Bell: the amount won’t even amount to pocket change.
But, “For a not-for-profit organization of CAIP’s size, $7,800 is beyond ‘meaningful,’ it’s oppressive,” CAIP chairman Tom Copeland (right) told p2pnet.
“If the Commission wanted to do something ‘meaningful’ they would have limited the longevity of Bell’s P2P throttling project or required Bell to provide a plan by which the need for long-term, network wide filtering on an intrusive basis would no longer be necessary.
“That would have been a meaningful action on the part of the Commission.”
The CRTC is to many intents and purposes been backing Bell in its efforts to shackle the accounts of its users, blaming people who use P2P file sharing applications forits ‘traffic management’ scheme.
“One of, if not the, most interesting revelations to emerge from the ongoing traffic throttling war between Bell Canada and its customers is the fact one of the CRTC’s top dogs, Leonard Katz, is an ex-very senior employee of both Bell Canada and Rogers,” noted p2pnet recently.
“Nor was this a case of there today, gone tomorrow. After a long delay, the CRTC … denied the CAIP … demand that Bell Canada halt its traffic-shaping practices against its customers, users and smaller ISPs alike”.
Kazt spent 17 years working for Rogers, and 11 for Bell.
But, “Len Katz’s work industry is an ‘interesting revelation’?” – asks Serge in a p2pnet Reader’s Write, continuing »»»
Hello? This statement is moronic — it is not a revelation, it is an extremely well-known fact that was included in the press release when Katz was named its position. There is something distinctly dumb about thinking that the CRTC should be composed of people with no industry experience.
What, did you think that he signed a blood oath or fealty to the CEO when he got hired at Bell Canada and Rogers? (If that reasoning had any basis in reality, it is hard to imagine he could have worked at Rogers, having worked at its chief competitor. Or did you think he was Bell’s super-secret double-agent spy at Rogers, perhaps?)
Mind you, if you succumb to this kind of gutter thinking, it gets worse. Judges were once lawyers who defended people like murderers! Journalists who cover stories have their opinions! It’s a nutty world out there!
In all seriousness, the way it works is pretty simple. You hire people who have good knowledge. You require them to, and presume they will, use it in an impartial and objective manner, no matter how much you are into conspiracy theories. Then yu judge their adherence to that presumption by their decisions and reasoning. Not by shadowy whispered tales of their (hello! obvious! everyone always knew!) work history.
The idiotarian talks about mailing bags of shit and calls everyone who disagrees him with an idiot. The non-idiotarian actually tries to do something about it. Not to discourage you from wallowing in eggs, bricks, or bags of shit, but if any of you have two brain cells to rub together, you might consider actually coming up with proposals to reform the CRTC. You know, figuring out what’s wrong, and how to fix it? The engineers among us might recall this approach. It’s called getting on with things.
Impartial senior government bureaucrat
In another post, “One could almost say Bell, Canada’ s largest ISP, is in a monopoly position,” said p2pnet, adding »»»
But it isn’t. Also in the game as a supposed competitor is Rogers, with Telus lurking in the background.
Is there such a thing as a tri-opoly?
But Canadians do have Sheridan Scott as Canada’s Commissioner of Competition, the head of the Competition Bureau.
So no fears there. She’s certain to be an impartial senior government bureaucrat.
Just like Katz.
However, “before joining the Competition Bureau in January 2004, Ms. Scott was Chief Regulatory Officer of” [you guessed it] Bell Canada,” says her official site, going on:
“She was responsible for overseeing all activities involving the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the Copyright Board and the Competition Bureau on behalf of Bell Canada, Bell Mobility and Bell ExpressVu. Ms. Scott previously served as Vice-president – Office of the President and Vice-president, Multimedia Law and Regulation at Bell Canada.”
Not only but also, “From 1983 to 1992, she worked as Legal Counsel and Senior Legal Counsel at the CRTC, where she was involved in major hearings on long distance competition, the regulation of cable rates and the renewal of pay and specialty licences.”
Could she have become involved? She could have. But she didn’t.
It’s an interesting situation where one important ex-Bell executive runs an important government bureau designed to make sure everything is fair and square, and another important ex-Bell person sits right at the top of an equally important agency designated to make a ruling which will have a direct effect on Bell Canada’ s revenues.
Are any other ex-Bell employees ensconced in influential government bureaucracies, one wonders?
Stay tuned?
Jon Newton – p2pnet
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
December 24th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Lawrence Lessig says it’s time to nuke the FCC from orbit
The nation’s leading writer on media and telecommunications law says it’s time to get rid of the Federal Communications Commission, which he calls corrupt beyond repair.
…
The FCC’s corruption has become a crucial problem, he says, because the agency is now charged with overseeing the Internet and all its future innovations. “In the next decades, it could well become the default regulator for every new communications technology, including, and especially, fantastic new ways to use wireless technologies, which today carry television, radio, internet, and cellular phone signals through the air,” Lessig notes.
What does he propose to replace the FCC with? An Innovation Environment Protection Agency (iEPA). “Minimal intervention to maximize innovation,” would be its founding motto. The iEPA would dedicate itself to defending innovators from “excessive government favors, and excessive private monopoly power.”
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081224-lawrence-lessig-says-its-time-to-nuke-the-fcc-from-orbit.html
And here, in Canada, the CRTC launched a “new media” consultation, which is about how to make censorship more pervasive and more efficient and force “Canadian content” – not on basis of meritocracy.
We can buy foreign magazines in Canada but we cannot watch foreign TV (read about the 2005 RCMP busts on suppliers of American satellite dishes who provided US addresses to Canadian residents)
Now CRTC launches a “new media consulation”, but from the reading of the description, only submissions from “important persons” are accepted (read corporations).
From the “new media consultation” description and mention of “Canadian content”, it is clear that this is about the best way to perform corporate censorship on the new media. After all, they do it on old media.
CRTC is about corporate control, protecting monopolies and forcing censorship. CRTC must be abolished, together with this American neoconservative government of Harper.
December 25th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
“Nuke”:
1. Larry Lessig’s call is good, but a bit misleading. He’s calling to abolish the FCC in order to create a whole new regulator. Why not just fix the existing one? Because that would be “tinkering”. Uh, okay — but, either way, he’s calling for improved regulation.
2. On the New Media proceeding, seriously, what the heck are you blathering on about? The CRTC hearing is not about “censorship” in anyone’s mind but the most conspiratorial. As to not being able to watch foreign TV, I don’t know what planet you live in, but in this here Canada, we get ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, PBS, and — well, every single foreign TV network most folks can think of. And the ones we don’t have have nothing to do with the CRTC: they’re not here because they couldn’t strike a deal with a cable carrier or satellite company to carry them.
Still, I’m curious. I’ve read through the CRTC’s new media notice of public hearing. The one you’re blathering about. (You know, this one. Oonly submissions from “important persons” are accepted (read corporations)? Really? It’s not like I’d accuse you of just making stuff up. But, really, I don’t see that. Want to tell us how you came up with it?
3. Oh, and Jon — congratulations. You’ve now “discovered” that the previous employers of the ex-Commissioner of Competition include the CBC, CRTC, and Bell Canada, among other places. As was stunningly obvious to, well, everyone. But, by all means, do reveal more. How did this influence her decisions? What did she do that a less Bell-tainted Commissioner (for instance, previous Commissioners) wouldn’t have done? What didn’t she do that a less shadowy, evil-influenced Commissioner would have done? And how did all her previous ties colour her Bell experience? Was she the CBC’s secret agent at the CRTC, perhaps? The CRTC’s secret agent at Bell? Maybe CBC’s secret agent at the Competition Bureau? Or maybe a super-secret double CBC agent at the Competition Bureau, fronting for a secret Bell and CBC tie-up all the while? Once again, the mind reels.
And, of course, cluelessness reigns at P2Pnet.
December 26th, 2008 at 3:43 am
Wow, I sense a bit of anger from Serge.
Might it be that we’re dealing with the same bag of snakes that operate the whole spectrum of officials? Sure seems this way.
Well, Serge seems to think that that it’s OK to have employees bounce back and forth between CRTC, BELL, CBC, ROGERS and others and still be “fair and square”.
It’s that “fair and square” part that’s most disturbing since it implies Freemasons, Masons and most likely Illuminati. One of our favorite secret societies that seem to be connected to German Queen of Britain, bankers, satanic cult, New World Order and much more at it’s higher levels.
But let’s get back to our “marry go around” of office holders. Who gave these ex-corporate flunkies the rights to be on OUR CRTC board without permission? Who gave the CRTC the rights to hold back room meetings, lobbing and most likely making of deals? Are there not fully experienced human beings that can fill these positions in our interests without them being ex-corporate or government flunkies?
I say flunkies due the fact that they have a habit of bounding and traveling in the same circles and making decisions advantageous to corporations and government instead of Canadians. Maybe Serge is forgetting why the CRTC was created in the first place.
I, as many Canadians, have not benefited from DPI, throttling, being spied on, reported to RIAA, wrongfully billed and much worse. As a matter of fact we have lost speeds, our cash, time, enjoyment and freedoms because of this bag of snakes called the Government, CRTC, BELL, and the rest of them. I’ll be happy to send you my bill Serge so we can make it “fair and square”.
It seems like their plan is and has been to lock down OUR Internet whether we like it or not. And I bet Serge will come back here and say this is some kind of fictitious dream I’m having even though the evidence is clear and has been ever since Bell and others were given our hard earned cash to upgrade internet to fiber speeds for all Canadians back in the 90’s.
December 26th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Not anger, frustration. The same people keep posting the same idiocy over and over again. Perhaps it’s time for reality-based thinking instead. Fair and square is based on what you do, not who you are, free1.
Who gave the CRTC the “right”? Uh, you did. We have these here laws. Read the Broadcasting Act, Telecom Act, and the CRTC Act. If you don’t like them then you’ll have to, you know, actually use your brain and figure out how to improve them. Then tell someone.
But not only do I know why the CRTC was created, “free” 1 — I also know that you can always take any decision to court if you have an actually-existing, principled basis on which to challenge it. In fact, you can even sue for bias, if you can actually demonstrate some. Or, alternatively, you can whine about how the decision must be wrong ’cause, durn it, the person who made the decision must surely be under someone else’s mind control because they worked for a bunch of employers all of whom have opposing — no, wait, concurring — oh, um… well, anyway, you can, but it’s, well, whiny, and it doesn’t really pass any kind of rigour test except on think-alike Web forums. Stil, seriously, do tell. Is Sheridan Bell’s flunky, or the CBC’s, or the CRTC’s, or whose, exactly? And Len Katz, is he on Bell’s side on on Rogers’ here? It’s all so terribly confusing. Clear it up for us, will you? Or is Bell the most powerfullest of the secret satanic banker Illuminati, bowling over all the other gotcha-affiliations in a single puff?
Free1, here’s an idea. Rather than sending me your bill, go build a network. Or even a teensy little ISP. Or, if you think Bell owes you something then, by all means, go sue them. (Reported to RIAA? Canadians? Or “spied” on? Can you remind me on what planet you live, again? It ain’t this one.) Or, and here’s a nutty one, download the decision — any of them, really; there are five or so every day — read it, and identify which parts they got wrong. Using logic, not Illumnati analysis., mind you. Or even, and now I’m really going out on a limb, actually intervene in one of these processes by making a cogent argument, writing it down, and sending it in. (Hint: cogent argument != “you stupid bag of shit flunky, give me goodies now!”.) Our “Nuke CRTC!” friend merrily spinning falsehoods above would have done far better to actually respond to the New Media notice, just like 150-odd others did. GIant guess here: he didn’t. Surprise.
By the way, Nukester, there’s a pretty good response to Lessig here. Worth reading. If you can make your way through it, that is. It’s, you know, hard.