Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rogers Joins Telus In Seeking National Regulation

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the cheaper-to-buy-off-one-set-of-politicians dept.

Canada 53

silentbrad writes "Canada's largest mobile service provider is urging the federal telecom regulator to implement a mandatory national consumer protection code (PDF; actual filing with the CRTC) in order to defuse the threat posed by a growing hotchpotch of provincial regulations for wireless services. Rogers Communications Inc. submitted that proposal to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission in an application late Thursday. In doing so, Rogers becomes the second major carrier to ask the CRTC to resume active regulation of the terms and conditions for wireless service contracts, a practice it largely abandoned during the 1990s. Nonetheless, those regulatory powers, while latent, remain in the Telecommunications Act, meaning the CRTC can still exercise its authority over those matters."

cancel ×

53 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Surprising. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336691)

Honestly I would have thought Telus' request to be a move knowing it would cause problems for Rogers, seeing as Telus and Bell have a reciprocal network sharing agreement and so tend to collude on most matters.

I have to be missing something here.

Re:Surprising. (5, Insightful)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336923)

You're missing the fact that the CRTC is a captured regulator [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Surprising. (0, Troll)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337109)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but pretty much ALL regulators, in ALL liberal democracies are captured in one way or another.

This is why "Big Business" likes regulation and spends money on politicians (read: lefties) that support more regulation, They know they OWN the regulators, and will be able to easily set up the regulations to benefit themselves to the exclusion of up and coming competition. Let's face it; Central Bureaucrats are cheap to buy and easy to manipulate for the power they wield.

This is why sane people support the ideals of conservatism and libertarianism. Smaller government with limited and specifically delineated powers is far more difficult to corrupt and much less worth the effort. Having a flatter and more distributed government that is more "local" than "federal" means that corruption is much more expensive to achieve than it is with a large federal bureaucratic government. Also, with less (not none. Less.) regulation generally, there is less market distortion and the bar to entry is significantly lower. This enables more competition and everyone benefits.

I always find it funny how many people continue to cling to the centralized and bureaucratic model for government when it has so often been proven to be an utter failure. TFA is yet another example.

Re:Surprising. (2, Interesting)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337537)

you are also blaming bureaucracy for a legislative failure

bureaucracy gets the blame for every half-wit legislative idea that is implemented poorly because it cannot be implemented correctly due to being not thought out at all and being written by an idiot.

bureaucracy is what first implements laws, written by morons, into regulations then implement regulations into a process that actually gets something done.

like anything else a department can be poorly structured and inefficient in which case it should be reformed, but those "unelected Bureaucrats" are all that stands between you and a million monkeys on typwriters, well 535 monkeys actually

imagine if every law included it's exact implementation right down to design of paperwork, office procedure, etc.

Re:Surprising. (2)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39338297)

I wouldn't go that far, at least in Canada. Regulators walk a fine line between the public and industry. Usually they have one master (whatever the political party of the day is, which can change things), and two focuses one of the public and one of the industry. Usually the idea behind the industry support is to ensure that they are strong and vital, so that the industry is available to the public, producing jobs, services, goods or whatever. The public of course is looking out for what is it the best interest of the public.

In the case of CRTC they have defiantly crossed that line, and stayed crossed for some time. The same can't be said of all regulators, as there are a ton that do very good work across Canada. The trouble with some however is how they hire their staff. This is the same problem of the lobbyists going back and forth between the US political parties. The CRTC would argue that they are simply hiring those with the most skill and knowlege in telecommunications, which of course ALL come from Bell or Rogers more less. They all come from the same side of the fence. They all have likely the same perspective and outlook of what is in the best interest of Canadians. So I think they probably believe they are doing the right thing. It has to do with the systemic hiring practices, if got some new blood in there I am sure it would make all the difference. Have some contesting opinions, etc... As as much as they might like to make the argument that being an executive at both Bell and Rogers makes you perfect for the job as the chair of the CTRC, one could also make the pretty good argument that there is a conflict of interest. Because really to do the jobs at CRTC, you need some legal or policy back ground, some idea how the industry works and is set up (which can be taught), and some technical knowlege. You don't need all that much technical knowlege either. I guess what I am saying is all your staff shouldn't be coming from private industry you regulate.

So anyway, while yes the CRTC is in need of reform, I don't think it is fair to say that all regulators are in bed with industry, as I don't believe it.

Re:Surprising. (1, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39338575)

Having a flatter and more distributed government that is more "local" than "federal" means that corruption is much more expensive to achieve than it is with a large federal bureaucratic government. Also, with less (not none. Less.) regulation generally, there is less market distortion and the bar to entry is significantly lower. This enables more competition and everyone benefits.

That's a cute theory but unfortunately the historical evidence from the mid 19th century to the early 20th century shows it's bunk.

Re:Surprising. (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39338713)

they may be captured and sometimes it is good so.

It is sometimes not very intelligent to protest vital regulation on basis that all regulation is evil as if it is vital then it will slip trough on lower levels which causes a mess that is costly to everybody. Sufficiently well thought trough regulation may be beneficial (either because indeed it was thought trough or because of luck). The good example is: USA had always better technology in mobile networks than Europe. Yet it was/is Europe where coverage and interoperability are better, it is also Europe where the mobile telephony actually grew to the level that mobile phones are cheap enough to purchase and use for almost everyone. The reason for all the success in Europe was that we had something called standards that were established by international bodies on basis of hints by few evil corporations that did sell mobiles and networks in which they could work. So TFA may be another attempt at organizing things right so that Canadians have service US Americans never will. I find it funny that it often enough ends so.....

Re:Surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39341253)

I'm going to have to call BS on that "US had better mobile networks than Europe". The US NEVER had better tech. US has always been on the lagging side because the companies all decided to build their own individual networks -- effectively duplicating effort) instead of teaming up.

I purchased a Sony Ericsson V800i with a video conferencing 3G camera about 7 years ago. I wasn't able to use the 3G here for two reasons: 1) the cell frequencies didn't match up. 2) There was no 3G, just EDGE.

Also:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/15259/100_mbps_4g_lte_europe_laughs_at_u_s_slow_progress
I'm sorry, what was that about better tech? They're actually offering proper 4G/LTE at 100mbps, not some bullshit "I've got 4gees (15mbps) on my phonez".

Re:Surprising. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39341069)

hmm not so interesting to talk about this. Lets play for a minute [jetztspielen.us]

Re:Surprising. (1)

Jessified (1150003) | more than 2 years ago | (#39344005)

Exactly. What more proof do you need than Rogers and telus ASKING to be regulated by the CRTC?

Re:Surprising. (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337247)

Much harder to successfully bribe several provinces than it is to bribe one government entity; particularly true if your lobbyist already own said entity.

Oooh (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336713)

When groups of incumbent telecom providers gather together to protect consumers, it's usually to protect consumers from the distraction of non-incumbent providers striving to provide superior and less expensive service.

Re:Oooh (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336737)

It is easy to manipulate a single Federal regulator than all those pesky provinces. No business seeks to protect consumers, just themselves. If they say otherwise it is just spin.

Re:Oooh (4, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336753)

Yup. They want a convenient one-stop-shop for all their politician-purchasing needs. Plus, it's more difficult to bribe local leaders who might personally be effected by the Telco's tyranny and have their own interest in seeing more competition.

Re:Oooh (5, Informative)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336823)

They want a convenient one-stop-shop for all their politician-purchasing needs.

"Purchasing" isn't exactly the right term here. The CRTC chairman was an Assistant Director at Bell and a President at Rogers. He's still technically working for Rogers and Bell, except at a fancier government office that's all.

Re:Conflict of Interest (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337019)

Oh I am so relieved to hear there is no conflict of interest involved in his appointment or execution of his office. Who appointed him?

Re:Conflict of Interest (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337291)

Not to argue that there isn't a conflict of interest, but I guess that the alternative would be to appoint someone who hasn't worked in the telecom industry. I'm not sure which would end up worse. Having someone in charge who is old friends with the people running the telcos, or having somebody in charge who has no idea about telecommunications networks are run, and has never worked in the business.

Re:Conflict of Interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39337669)

Or having a researcher or economist that has spent a lot of time analyzing the system. You don't have to work in a system to see the flaws... and sometimes working in it blinds you to what needs to be done. The only problem I would have is if they let someone in that thinks the internet is a series of tubes.

Re:Conflict of Interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39347409)

are former Assistant Director at Bell and a President at Rogers the only ones who have an idea about telecommunication networks?

I just switched from MTS to Rogers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39337037)

I was an MTS cellular customer for ten+ years and I recently switched to Rogers, and I've never been happier. I previously had Blackberries (Curve, 8830 World, Torch) and the data service was always spotty. Regardless of geographic location, sometimes it would work and othertimes not. I got fed up when, somehow, my bill had crept up to $85/month.

I now have a Galaxy Nexus with Rogers and I've never been happier. Internet is blazing fast. Phone is awesome. And the kicker: my bill is $55 a month, which is a THIRD lower than my old bill. (For more services too -- more minutes, Canada-wide pick five, unlimited domestic incoming calls, unlimited messaging. I get 1GB of data, each additional gig is another $5.)

My point is that it's not quite as simple as you make it out to be. =)

Re:I just switched from MTS to Rogers (0)

Reed Solomon (897367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341265)

i did the opposite and now I'm with MTS unlimited 3G data for $75/month. Rogers refuses to offer that option so they can DIAF. Granted I brought my own unlocked Android phone so I'm on month to month.. but that's a bonus as well. MTS's biggest failure is in their still pathetic phone selection. I almost think someone at RIM is a major shareholder and refuses to let them offer anything that isn't a blackberry.

Re:I just switched from MTS to Rogers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39347511)

rogers... is that you?..

Re:Oooh (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339799)

When groups of incumbent telecom providers gather together to protect consumers, it's usually to protect consumers from the distraction of non-incumbent providers striving to provide superior and less expensive service.

Got that right. Remember the Industry Canada wireless calculator? No?

Basically it was an online tool that helped consumers figure out the best deal on their cellphone by letting them compare apples with apples.

Just over a month ago, the Harper Government killed it. Not that it was overbudget or anything - it was in beta and apparently worked *really* well and was basically due to be unveiled. All the people who beta tested it agreed it was a very useful tool.

Naturally, the big 3 were very upset, because all the new budget carriers were showing up as the cheapest while they were solidly at the bottom consistently.

Defuse not diffuse - Language Nazi post (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336855)

You defuse bombs, and language may have morphed so that you can defuse any type of threat.

Diffuse means spread out like the potential regulations.

Re:Defuse not diffuse - Language Nazi post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39345793)

The article previously stated that the intention was to diffuse the threat. Now they have corrected it the parent post looks silly but it made sense when written.

It's all about the contracts (4, Interesting)

canowhoopass.com (197454) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336859)

Getting the cheap/free cellphone in Canada often involves signing up for long 3 year plan with huge penalties if you quit early.

I'm not sure of all the provinces, but I know that both Quebec and Manitoba have new laws in place requiring better contract disclosure and limiting those penalties.

I suspect that Rogers and Telus are afraid the other provinces will enact the same or stronger legislation.

Re:It's all about the contracts (4, Informative)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#39336927)

Ontario has one up for debate with tri-party support in the legislature right now. While the specifics are different, the essentials are the same as the Manitoba law. One thing I'm particularly fond of is the changes to the early termination fees, which they're looking at turning into an extra charge on your monthly bill. Essentially like the Koodo Tab, only with it being a real charge on top of the monthly fees, so that when you're not on a contract, you pay less.

Rogers probably realizes they can't win this one. In the long run, every province will go this way. What they probably want is for the CRTC to enact a national policy so that they don't get stuck with the administrative hassle that is having 12 separate contract fee and termination structures.

Re:It's all about the contracts (2)

Mabhatter (126906) | more than 2 years ago | (#39338367)

Because 12 different sets of rules are so complicated? The USA has 50 different sets of rules... And it seems to me manageable ... I'd call BS!

Re:It's all about the contracts (1)

Xeranar (2029624) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339403)

Not really, the FCC and FTC regulate most of this stuff. That's why contracts are standard state-to-state in the US. If anything this is clearly what Canowhoopass.com is writing about. I read the PDF quickly and it sounds like they want to go back to the old rules of if you break a contract you need to pay for your subsidy and a huge fee to offset its cost. This is clearly a grab-back move where they lost to the provinces and now want to grab back by having the federal government give them their old rules back. Ironic and sad at the same time.

Re:It's all about the contracts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39340159)

50? No, it's worse than that. You gotta figure in cities, counties, and special tax districts.

Try thousands.

Re:It's all about the contracts (0)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339685)

by realityimpaired (1668397) Alter Relationship on Tuesday March 13, @03:57AM (#39336927)

Ontario has one up for debate with tri-party support in the legislature right now. While the specifics are different, the essentials are the same as the Manitoba law. One thing I'm particularly fond of is the changes to the early termination fees, which they're looking at turning into an extra charge on your monthly bill. Essentially like the Koodo Tab, only with it being a real charge on top of the monthly fees, so that when you're not on a contract, you pay less.

Rogers probably realizes they can't win this one. In the long run, every province will go this way. What they probably want is for the CRTC to enact a national policy so that they don't get stuck with the administrative hassle that is having 12 separate contract fee and termination structures.

You mean, "pay less".

You see, the end goal is for you to pay the same bill you do, AND tack on another $15/month ?cellphone subsidy fee" to it. Sure you pay less once the phone's paid off, but while you were on contract, the carriers were getting an extra $15 from that "fee" that they would've had to eat from your plan.

They aren't going to change their plans to remove the subsidy. They were planning on having it as another fee they could charge to even greater profit.

Re:It's all about the contracts (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337329)

If you live in a major city, there's always Wind, Mobilicity, or any of the other in-the-city providers. Their rates are amazing, especially if you use data. The downside is that their rates are only good if you're within the city limits. Many people I know think that's a big problem. But personally, for the few times a year I leave the city, I'm happy paying the roaming rates, or just not using my cell phone. If I was in the position where I had to use my phone a lot, like for a job, my employer would be covering the fees, and they can use whichever provider they want. But for personal use, I'd much rather stay away from RoBellus

Sounds delicious (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39336917)

A "hotchpotch" is a mutton stew. Do you mean a "hodgepodge"? :-)
Lesson: Never edit when you're hungry :-)

Re:Sounds delicious (2, Informative)

andy.ruddock (821066) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337205)

From oxforddictionaries.com

hotchpotch

(North American hodgepodge)
noun
1 [in singular] a confused mixture:
a hotchpotch of uncoordinated services

2a mutton stew with mixed vegetables.

Re:Sounds delicious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39337375)

I thought Canada was part of North America

Re:Sounds delicious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39338253)

Canada often accepts, although not always adopts British spellings. Only a few British spellings are *never* found, such as "tyre". Sentence construction tends to be American, though.

Source: I would know, I live in Canada and have spent several months in the UK.

Re:Sounds delicious (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39339655)

Only in /. does a news snippet about mobile telephony regulation quickly morph to a discussion of etymology and usage of a word for "stew"

(smile when you say that son)

HUGE Security Resource - version 5000 - 03/06/12 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39337009)

HUGE Security Resource - version 5000 - 03/06/12
- http://pastebin.com/i7c3SJYN [pastebin.com]

Previously featured on the front page of Cryptome.org.

Diffuse? (0)

necro81 (917438) | more than 2 years ago | (#39337245)

in order to diffuse the threat posed by a....

I can see it now in their boardroom:

The Board: "Gahh! The threat! The Threat! It is so opaque and solid! What will we do?"

VP for Regulatory Affairs: "I know! Let's diffuse it!"

VP for Queen's English: "Wait, don't you mean 'defuse [merriam-webster.com] ?' "

CEO: "Quiet, peon! I agree; let's diffuse [merriam-webster.com] the threat!"

The Board: "Yaaaay! More bonuses!"

Hotchpotch? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39337313)

Hodgepodge, no?

CRTC, batting for the consumer? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39337407)

I worked for a local canadian ISP for many years. We could buy local-loops from the incumbent phone company for 12 dollars per line, per month, and sell DSL. Or, we would have been able to if the incumbent decided that "those are alarm loop lines only.". the crtc should have leveled the playing field by saying that one line is one price, not 2 prices for 2 different industries. the carrier wanted to charge 160/mo per line (when they sold dsl for 40/mo to end-users) to us, and 12 to alarm companies for literally the same line. The CRTC's response was "its not a monopoly. even though tax money paid for the infrastructure before it was privatized and the rates have since gone up, the cable company can compete with the phone company. so its not a monopoly and we dont have to step in". Years of frustrated letters and phone conversations about this anticompetitive business practice ended nowhere. the 30 or 40 isps in my city? basically all gone. 2 remain in any real sense, the cable, and phone company :) almost 15 years later look where we are now? UBB being pushed by the largest carriers, fairly expensive internet for developed countries, etc. Until the CRTC stops sucking the wang of bell, rogers, and shaw, we will slide further into the abyss.

ca*net was supposed to provide 10mbit fiber about a decade ago to most canadian homes, and how did that work, with all the "boohoo. we want 20 minute hold times for tech support, unlimited price fixing and deep packet inspection, or we are going to stop giving our legislators money". i say this in the most cordial manner possible to our CRTC and spokespersons from our incumbents. rim a thousand goats and contract some goat herpes on your stupid faces.

If you, as a consumer, have the option of a small ISP? Take it. I could be with the telco, or the cableco. but i spend more money, but i get better service in every regard.

Uniform law = uniform gouge (2)

Tyr07 (2300912) | more than 2 years ago | (#39338239)

Of course they want national laws. It'll be much easier to screw customers over if they can figure out national loopholes, a lot less work for their legal team.

Re:Uniform law = uniform gouge (1)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339897)

They can't even keep their own policies straight.

I'm trying to unlock an old Fido (subsidiary of Rogers) iPhone from a deactivated account. It's an official, permanent factory unlock that costs $50.

4 different customer service reps, 3 different courses of action. Two of them tried directing me to sketchy $15 unlocking services in malls--but I'm 99% certain that's just a jailbreak + unlock (which I could do myself), which is lost if ever the phone software is updated or restored.

I can't believe how many roadblocks I've run into trying to GIVE THEM $50.

Re:Uniform law = uniform gouge (1)

Tyr07 (2300912) | more than 2 years ago | (#39341499)

Locking is something the firmware does.
Locked phone = unable to use other companies sim cards.
E.G you update to that particular companies firmware when an update comes out, you're locked again.

So, either way. If you can unlock it yourself, then you're good to go.

Re:Uniform law = uniform gouge (1)

quacking duck (607555) | more than 2 years ago | (#39344955)

This is an iPhone, so the carrier doesn't have its own custom firmware. There's a few carrier-specific config settings that get updated from time to time, but that doesn't contain the lock/unlock status.

The jailbreak+unlock isn't available for all iPhones, especially newer ones or older iPhone models with an updated iOS and modem baseband.

Apple keeps a list of which IMEI numbers are locked to which company. Through this official unlock, Fido and Rogers customers, after satisfying far too many conditions, can pay the $50 so that the IMEI number is removed from the list. Next time it's synced or restored in iTunes, during device verification, you get a confirmation from Apple itself saying it's unlocked.

Re:Uniform law = uniform gouge (1)

Tyr07 (2300912) | more than 2 years ago | (#39351843)

So what you're saying is that the...firmware....is locked.

Kudos that they can tell the firmware to unlock.
But replacing it, all the same....

Keep out competition (3, Insightful)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339675)

I have zero doubt that this is a ploy to create a system where newcomers have to "respect" a regulatory regime that would make newcomers behave just like the incumbents.

One of the things that the old players probably fear the most is newcomers doing "evil" things such as offering data at a low price without making the customer first sign up for a bunch of crap they don't want. Also I can see them somehow figuring out a ruleset that makes 3 year contracts a de-facto standard.

In Atlantic Canada I am counting the days until I can dump Telus for one of the two new players coming this spring.

You reap what you sow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39339681)

I find it quite amusing that the carriers are asking for guidelines around this. Individual provinces chose to enact laws because their residents were getting screwed by the cell companies. Had the cell companies not done this to begin with, the provinces would have left well enough alone. I hope the feds step in and enact extremely consumer-friendly policies, if for no other reason that to teach these guys a lesson. Or even, better, the feds to do nothing and force the carriers to conform to individual provincial rules - it'll be 10 times the work for them.

God I hate the CRTC (1)

hamalnamal (2499998) | more than 2 years ago | (#39339729)

In some ways Canada' s policies and agencies are far more progressive and useful than their American counterparts, however some of them just make me cringe. The CRTC is a prime example, I didn't think you could be more of the telecoms little bitch than the FCC, but apparently you can. When the companies from the industry you are supposed to be regulating ask you to regulate (aka do your job) you know something is wrong.

Whatever they are doing, its likely bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39340257)

Rogers, Telus (or Bell for that matter) have never had the customers interest in mind. In canada we pay the highest data fees in the first world and we have the most impossible contracts to escape from; Rogers by far is most sociopathic corporation i have ever had the misfortune of dealing with. Whatever the telecoms in Canada want it isnt good for the customer.

Conflicts (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39340907)

When anyone has to comply with multiple regulations for the same thing conflicts can and usually do occur. One regulation may focus on one aspect and give the industry a break on another aspect while a second regulation may do the exact opposite.

For example;
Province A regulation states the maximum contract length is 2 years and the maximum monthly penalty is 1/12 of the contract value. This regulation focuses on the contract length while giving a break on the cancellation penalty.
Province B regulation stated the maximum contract length be 3 years and the maximum monthly penalty be 1/36 of the contract value. This regulation focuses on the cancellation penalty while allowing longer contracts.

To comply with both regulations industry would have to have 2 year contracts with maximum monthly penalty being 1/36 of the contract value; the worst of both worlds.

Now do that for 10 provinces and see what can happen. Each province will try to balance the regulations between the needs of the people and the needs of industry. The problem comes when industry has to comply with the harshest parts of all regulations. By doing this all semblance of balance is gone.

There are two solutions to this issue;
1. A national regulation; a simple solution that allows for a single contract for anyone in Canada.
2. Separate contracts for each province; Complex as the company has to create and maintain ten different contracts. Difficult for customer service as it is easy to confuse ten similar contracts leading to misinformation and confusion. Difficult to advertise as commercials and literature would be different in each province. Considering I can watch a number of out of province channels I may be presented with a number of different contracts that are not available in my province. Confusing to anyone who moves between provinces as their contract may change to comply with local regulations.

Maybe the solution to this issue is to change the CRTC to be more responsive to the people's needs rather than create ten different regulations.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>