in regards to the Canadian CRTC filing on, “2009-03-13 – # 8740-B2-200904989 – Bell Canada – TN 7181 – General Tariff – Gateway Access Service ”

The Quebec Union des consommateurs filed this gem:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/8740/2009/b2/1081297.zip

I’m not french so I didn’t grasp it all. But someone made a summarization here of it:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22290162-
—
The Quebec Consumers Union filing is worth translating and reading. I only gave it the once over, but I’ll re-read it for sure.

I think they accuse Bell of the following (and maybe more):
—-

Accuses Bell of undermining its structure (they provide financials to this effect on page 2).

Discrimination (per the telecom act): undermining its legacy structure while investing in next gen structure that is closed off to competition (if I understood correctly, page 3).

Discrimination (per the telecom act): by not allowing access to fiber (page 3 & 4).

Discrimination (per the telecom act): that gives Bell gives an undue preference and pricing (page 4).

Conflict of interest (both Bell/dsl and cable suppliers) in what they sell the public: Thus the finacials reported on page 1 of the PDF and accusations, and the price gouging (to paraphrase). Page 5

Accuses them (not just Bell) of restricting fiber access for the purpose of preventing faster, better content delivery which is in conflict with what they sell (page 5).

Imposing their acceptable use policy on Customers that don’t belong to Bell. (page 6)

Something along the lines of Bell submitting nothing what these surcharges will be for other than filling its coffers. (page 6)

Discrimination based on, nothing showing how this surcharge would be reflected in fair and proportionate access to essential facilities (page 6).

Bell going beyond normal limits by saying: wholesale end-users will also be subject to the service being restricted, suspended or disconnected if further instances of excessive use occur, in accordance with Bells’ AUP. “In other words, practices that, according to Bell, appear to be excessive, or anything per Bells’ AUP (sounds like the france 3 strike deal heh, page 6-7). Also the terms of the AUP are arbitrary and give nothing concrete. Teksavvy users are at the whim of Bell and any made up/new policy.

In view of the above, Bells proposed policy infringes on the fundamental rights protected by the Charter of Rights and liberties. “”Article 2: Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and
other means of communications. The Council can not approve such a measure.” (page 7)

In addition the CRTC must take action against Bell & Telus for the obstruction the implementation of decisions of the
Council on essential services as defined in Decision 2008-117. (page 7)

BONUS: Therefore, Consumers’ Union asks that the Council consider the possibility of functional separation of competitive local holders in both entities, the network division to be separated from other divisions to allow a fair and reasonable access for all competitors to essential components of the network (page 7-8)

Conclusion:
• Consumers’ Union asks the Council to reject the application of tariff Bell
• Consumers’ Union asks the Council to consider the possibility of imposing the functional separation of incumbent local exchange carriers.

There is more in it… I like these people.

and

What will be interesting is if this goes through and 3 months later Bell adds to its AUP saying anyone who gets an infringement notice will be disconnected.

Sounds like this is where its headed if you read between the lines of the QC union filing.

Hmm scarey.
————————

Worth mentioning and sharing.

All movies, software, books were plastered with a red sticker saying “Available online for free”

http://martellus.livejournal.com/235290.html

97% of artists signed to major labels only get 600$ per year or less

90% of artists signed to major labels do not get any money.

Priceless.