Re-read the thread, I simply asked for what reasoning and logic was being used to form his very mis-guided opinions. Your opinions however can be shared with a moderator. Something can be said for your choice of words and lack of sound judgements... maybe "takes one to know one" ? (Yeah I know childish right? About the same maturity level you and Robert Creaser appear to be showing. I just work within the conversations tone, as they are set)
Actually Tz.. Ask a civil question get a civil answer.. I just can never figure out what your asking without all the other verbal diaharrea that litters your writing style. Sunny here , back to the beach. Out
Actually Tz.. Ask a civil question get a civil answer.. I just can never figure out what your asking without all the other verbal diaharrea that litters your writing style. Sunny here , back to the beach. Out
Sure! It all started here on Page 1, still 3 pages later... you didn't answer.
Originally Posted by tendenzi
Can you name names and prove what you're talking about? Which regulator was staffed by Rogers and what is your understanding that the CRTC was supposed to do to prevent or allow things like and SAF...? I think you believed some propaganda over the years... But hardly factual.
Was that verbal diaharrea or civilly asked? I'm not sure how you perceive the simplest of requests.
You answered by pointing to 1 vice chairman from Rogers, but we already covered that. You still didn't answer how or what you thought the CRTC was to do or regulate.
Sure! It all started here on Page 1, still 3 pages later... you didn't answer.
Was that verbal diaharrea or civilly asked? I'm not sure how you perceive the simplest of requests.
You answered by pointing to 1 vice chairman from Rogers, but we already covered that. You still didn't answer how or what you thought the CRTC was to do or regulate.
Originally Posted by tendenzi
Sure! It all started here on Page 1, still 3 pages later... you didn't answer.
Was that verbal diaharrea or civilly asked? I'm not sure how you perceive the simplest of requests.
You answered by pointing to 1 vice chairman from Rogers, but we already covered that. You still didn't answer how or what you thought the CRTC was to do or regulate.
Tz .. Your question asked more civilly... So my opinion only regarding the CRTC.. I see NO role for the CRTC in wireless communication.. the wireless business should be regulated by industry canada ONLY. They license transmitters keep everyone in the right bands, convert the TV bands to digital, claw back the spectrum saved, run the auctions, license the service providers, under policy frameworks set out ultimately by a responsible minister just like other govt departments eg Transport Canada with the airline industry, air lanes, air lines, airports airside. I see no role for the CRTC regulating voice and data, wired or wireless.
The only goal for govt here is to make a bigger market place with the wireless sprectrum available (see above IC is doing their part repurposing the obsolete TV bands), that requires more participation by the Canadian population, that requires LOWER costs to put devices and plans into more hands and business processes, and that will require additional competitors (if we don't want to regulate the price side of the incumbents) and those new competitors (without cross polinating monopolistic digital media distribution empires) will have to have lower cost structure then the incumbents to achieve/maintain similar profitability and that means that investment capital might mave to come from outside Canada and the call centres (which are not a "service" as implied in the title) might even be placed in low cost countries with different english accents so in the end the govt collects more $ (billions up front in the auctions and billions from gst/hst on the biggest market possible) they just have to get the size of the set aside ratios (incumbent/new entrants) correct to maximize present and future revenue. They are extremely good at this calculation and really want the revenue so I suspect they got that number about right.
The Canadian Radio and Television Commission does have a very important role for culture = content where I think they are failing miserably especially in English Canada. The other arms of the big 3 wireless cos are media empires that pump ever increasing hours of foreign content and news into the Canadian English media market place, sim sub 20 mins an hour of Canadian advertising and call it a day. The mandated Canadian content is so poorly produced and placed in the schedules that viewership is non existent. If the CRTC can't achieve better results in this important and vital part of their mandate then why should they exist at all? Will be watching to see if the Harper Govt moves to re focus the CRTC after the 09 shenanigans. This govt clearly wants this and other non competitive sectors opened up. They can change the 10% rule very easily. Folks in this sector (incumbents, regulators) would be wise to read the tea leaves and plan/act accordingly
As LTE matures and the distribution of culturally relevant content becomes viable I can see a role for the CRTC in the distributed content area just like cable, IPTV, OTA TV. Hopefully they are achieving better results on the cultural scorecards at that point.
Oh and finally after a week my email was finally answered. Speedy service
I filed a formal complaint. They said someone will get back to me in 2-5 business days. Hope they leave a message and not just hang up and close my case like the last three times.
Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by tendenzi
Re-read the thread, I simply asked for what reasoning and logic was being used to form his very mis-guided opinions. Your opinions however can be shared with a moderator. Something can be said for your choice of words and lack of sound judgements... maybe "takes one to know one" ? (Yeah I know childish right? About the same maturity level you and Robert Creaser appear to be showing. I just work within the conversations tone, as they are set)
Bookmarks