The CBC is reporting that CAIP, a variety of consumer groups, and oddly Telus is telling the CRTC that Bell should pay up in more ways than one for the throttling dispute that they started:
“Telus agrees with PIAC that the apportionment for liability for costs be allocated solely to Bell Canada,” wrote the company’s vice-president of policy and regulatory affairs, Ted Woodhead. “The application by CAIP [to the CRTC] was precipitated by Bell Canada’s actions.”
I say oddly because Telus originally supported Bell’s throttling actions, but has since sensed a marketing opportunity changed its tune because they don’t throttle and as as result they think they can make a ton of cash because of that.
The reason why these groups want Bell to pay up is simple:
“Bell has manufactured a crisis, engaged in highly controversial self-help measures that it knew would disrupt the provision of retail services by CAIP’s members to their end-user customers and forcibly transferred to CAIP’s members the burden, inconvenience and entirely unforeseen expense of bringing this application,” wrote CAIP president Tom Copeland.
To nobody’s surprise, Bell has said FOAD rejected these calls to pay up:
“Bell has rejected suggestions that it should be liable for all costs, and that CAIP is not a non-profit group since it is made up of many smaller commercial companies. Bell has said CAIP should be responsible for one third of the investigation’s cost.”
I think the reason why you are seeing this is that perhaps the feeling is that Bell may lose this fight and these groups might as well make Bell hurt. Seeing as it’s lost a high profile case recently, that is entierely possible. It would be a good thing if that were true.
Telus Flip Flops On “Bell Should Pay” Stance… Shock… Not…
Posted in Commentary with tags Canada, Net Neutrality, Telus, Throttling on September 23, 2008 by itnerdA 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.
Leave a comment »