A mere 24 hours after saying that “Bell should pay” for the throttling circus that it started Telus decided to reverse it’s stance on that issue:
“The direct parties in this proceeding are both CAIP and Bell Canada,” he [vice-president of policy and regulatory affairs, Ted Woodhead] wrote in a letter made public Monday. “As a result, Telus submits that any cost awards in relation to this proceeding should be allocated between those two parties, in such manner that the commission deems to be justified in the circumstances.”
Tom Copeland of the Canadian Association Of Internet Providers has a plausible explanation as to why they might have flopped:
“I imagine that a Bell VP was on the phone to a Telus VP 30 seconds after they received the letter of the 16th,” he said.
Bell and Telus have some agreements in place to share some of their infrastructure (most notably their cell service since they are both on the uber lame CDMA standard rather than the more mainstream GSM standard that Rogers/Fido uses and neither company can cover Canada on their own). So it’s a safe bet that when Bell read their letter, the fit hit the shan and large amounts of backpeadling ensued.
Telus has never been my favorite company, but this flip flop has added one more strike against them. I won’t be dealing with them if I can avoid it.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
This entry was posted on September 23, 2008 at 2:27 pm and is filed under Commentary with tags Canada, Net Neutrality, Telus, Throttling. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Telus Flip Flops On “Bell Should Pay” Stance… Shock… Not…
A mere 24 hours after saying that “Bell should pay” for the throttling circus that it started Telus decided to reverse it’s stance on that issue:
“The direct parties in this proceeding are both CAIP and Bell Canada,” he [vice-president of policy and regulatory affairs, Ted Woodhead] wrote in a letter made public Monday. “As a result, Telus submits that any cost awards in relation to this proceeding should be allocated between those two parties, in such manner that the commission deems to be justified in the circumstances.”
Tom Copeland of the Canadian Association Of Internet Providers has a plausible explanation as to why they might have flopped:
“I imagine that a Bell VP was on the phone to a Telus VP 30 seconds after they received the letter of the 16th,” he said.
Bell and Telus have some agreements in place to share some of their infrastructure (most notably their cell service since they are both on the uber lame CDMA standard rather than the more mainstream GSM standard that Rogers/Fido uses and neither company can cover Canada on their own). So it’s a safe bet that when Bell read their letter, the fit hit the shan and large amounts of backpeadling ensued.
Telus has never been my favorite company, but this flip flop has added one more strike against them. I won’t be dealing with them if I can avoid it.
Share this:
Like this:
Related
This entry was posted on September 23, 2008 at 2:27 pm and is filed under Commentary with tags Canada, Net Neutrality, Telus, Throttling. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.