sowny.net | The Southern Ontario/WNY Radio-TV Forum


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

July 27, 2021 4:02 pm  #1


If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

First it was the Commission ruling against lower prices for third party ISP providers - and by extension consumers

Now comes this decision.

Why don't they just rename the place, "CRTC: A Division of Bell & Rogers?"

 

July 27, 2021 4:07 pm  #2


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

This is actually written in the CRTC decision:
 
"...the Commission does not consider that competition and consumer choice qualify as public good considerations."

Wow. Unbelievable.

Case closed.

     Thread Starter
 

July 27, 2021 4:32 pm  #3


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

Brutal.

 

July 27, 2021 4:59 pm  #4


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

hmm...  I hate to say it... i think the CRTC needs to be replaced and defunded.  Their job is not to keep the big 3 making huge profits...   They are to ensure they are serving Canadians best interests.      They are out of touch.    

 

July 27, 2021 6:04 pm  #5


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

Wouldn't it be great if a couple of intrepid reporters did some deep digging into the CRTC, and brought major public attention and heat to their decisions.

August is a slow month for news.

 

July 27, 2021 6:49 pm  #6


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

betaylored wrote:

Wouldn't it be great if a couple of intrepid reporters did some deep digging into the CRTC, and brought major public attention and heat to their decisions.

yes, it would, but they won't be from any broadcast operations....
 

 

July 27, 2021 7:08 pm  #7


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

And therein lies the problem. Other than Jamil Jivani on CFRB, I haven't heard a single broadcaster dare talk about the previous decision to keep rates high for consumers, by siding with Bell & Rogers over discounted rates for third party Internet providers. That one came down a few weeks ago. Only Jivani dared to criticize it openly on air. The rest made like Simon & Garfunkel and sang The Sounds of Silence. 

This despite the fact the federal government openly promised they would encourage the CRTC to be more consumer oriented. That ended when Ian Scott, a former lobbyist for the telecommunications industry, was appointed chair. 

It will likely take a newspaper or an Internet news organization to fight this battle. Otherwise you won't be hearing much about it on TV and radio, who have to grovel to these morons for a licence renewal every few years.

My old news director told me he once had to appear before the Commission in the 70s. He called the experience hellish and said if even one Commissioner takes a dislike to you personally or to your station, they can make life miserable for you. And they all too frequently do. 

     Thread Starter
 

July 27, 2021 8:04 pm  #8


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area since I have never used a third party ISP.  But wasn't it the CRTC that required the big telecoms (Bell, Rogers Telus, and Videotron) to give access and lease their lines and technology to the smaller start ups in the first place?  In other words the big telecoms had no choice, they had to allow the new start up competition in.

The way I see it, the smaller companies better start getting proactive and promote or advertise their case.  They are relying far too much on good will, and the odd article in the National Post, who hate the CRTC anyway.
 
State your position, make it clear why this is unfair and put Bell, Rogers and even the CRTC on the defensive.  So far they seem to be preaching mostly to the people they have already.  Get together with the other third party ISP companies and take a few ads out in the Globe and Mail, even buy some time on CBC. 

They are assuming wrongly that since they are "the little guy" everyone understands and is sympathetic to their predicament.  They also need to counter the perception that their service is second rate or unreliable.  I know this is a David and Goliath situation but unless they get a lot of free press from newspapers and internet or the CBC (Marketplace) they better get a lot more proactive and get the message out.  However trouble with free press is that you don't control the message, and any negatives in your position or company could come up.  Or even worse, the big competition could be invited to give their side of the story.  Bell, Rogers, Telus and Videotron didn't get big because they were nice.

 

July 27, 2021 8:39 pm  #9


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

You admit you don’t know a lot about this issue and to be honest I'm no expert, either.
 
So here are some rather stark and undeniable facts from a recent article in the Toronto Star:
 
According to the paper’s analysis, since the CRTC’s ruling on allowing smaller providers access to the Big Guys’ existing networks, to help keep costs down and provide some badly needed competition, Bell, Rogers and the rest of the giants met with Commission personnel no less than 250 times. In comparison, the smaller guys got to meet them only 19 times in that same time period. And it wasn’t from lack of trying to get more access. The CRTC controls who its people meet with. Those numbers clearly speak for themselves.
 
And then there’s the story of Bell C.E.O. Mirko Bibic and CRTC chair Ian Scott – a former lobbyist for the telcos – having an apparently off-the-record beer together in a local bar, a meeting that almost certainly violates the Commission’s own rules. Yet nothing happened when a picture of the incident went public.
 
I would encourage you to read the Star article and its many graphics that show how undeniably one-sided things are. So when you partially blame the smaller companies for not getting their stories out or trying harder, it’s obvious they have been trying. But they’re vastly outgunned, a David vs. Goliath battle that in this case, they can’t possibly win.
 
Especially when the CRTC appears to be openly backing Goliath.     

     Thread Starter
 

July 27, 2021 9:54 pm  #10


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

I am playing a bit of devil's advocate here, which as you know I do from time to time.  The CRTC meeting with Bell, Rogers, Telus etc over 250 times, do we know it was only about the small providers getting access to the big telecom's networks?  Is this a fact?  None of these meetings or discussions were about anything else or any other areas like radio, TV, license renewal, regulations, applications etc.?  Are these discussions all made public and we can see what area or media was talked about?  I did glance at the Star article when it came out however I am blocked reading it again on the internet.

The CRTC chair and Bell CEO having a beer 17 months prior to the change in ruling to me is not really a smoking gun.  Mirko Bibic and Ian Scott likely have a long history and have known each other for years.  Them having a beer at a well known bar in Ottawa, that is a mecca for media and politicians after work is not really anything out of the ordinary.  Yes you could argue that the optics aren't good, but  It is a very public place crawling with politicians and media.  So it is not like they were having a secret meeting, both men are very well known in Ottawa circles. 

Do think it is smart for Teksavvy to be so political on their site?  To me, not a very good move.   You are putting it out there how much you dislike the CRTC, the big telecoms and how your company is getting screwed by them etc... This is not a good business plan, especially when you are counting on and need to work with the big guys and CRTC if you are going to survive.  So why spend so much time and effort on your website slamming them?

It is fine to be the upstart, but mixing in politics so heavily on your website will turn off as many potential customers as those that want to "stick it to the man."  Most potential customers aren't interested in your politics.  That's not why they came to the site.  They want a good deal and good service, they don't care about your business situation.  They have their own problems.

Again, cut the drama, stick to the facts, and take some ads out in the Globe and Mail, or buy some TV time.  Believe it or not Bell and Rogers might have to run their ads, since Teksavvy and the other independents are public legal businesses and don't own any television stations of their own.  But they need to be clear what they are trying to do, if they go overboard or get overly political will turn many potential customers off.

 

July 27, 2021 10:33 pm  #11


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

paterson1 wrote:

I am playing a bit of devil's advocate here, which as you know I do from time to time.  The CRTC meeting with Bell, Rogers, Telus etc over 250 times, do we know it was only about the small providers getting access to the big telecom's networks?  Is this a fact?  None of these meetings or discussions were about anything else or any other areas like radio, TV, license renewal, regulations, applications etc.?  Are these discussions all made public and we can see what area or media was talked about?

It's certainly possible - and I believe in the interest of fairness, the Star does point this out - that all those meetings could have had other topics brought up. But it strains credulity to think a large number of them weren't about the private ISP access - or at least the subject came up while discussing other areas. Bell, Rogers and the others have been fighting this decision since it was made in 2019 and to think they would not bring it up whenever the opportunity presents itself simply makes no sense.   

paterson1 wrote:

I did glance at the Star article when it came out however I am blocked reading it again on the internet.

Here's the article - although sadly minus the very illustrative graphics - via Outline. 

paterson1 wrote:

The CRTC chair and Bell CEO having a beer 17 months prior to the change in ruling to me is not really a smoking gun.  Mirko Bibic and Ian Scott likely have a long history and have known each other for years.  Them having a beer at a well known bar in Ottawa, that is a mecca for media and politicians after work is not really anything out of the ordinary.  Yes you could argue that the optics aren't good, but  It is a very public place crawling with politicians and media.  So it is not like they were having a secret meeting, both men are very well known in Ottawa circles.

 
The point remains this is a violation of the rules and both of them almost certainly knew that. The fact they didn't care and did it in public speaks volumes to me.
 

paterson1 wrote:

Do think it is smart for Teksavvy to be so political on their site?  To me, not a very good move.   You are putting it out there how much you dislike the CRTC, the big telecoms and how your company is getting screwed by them etc... This is not a good business plan, especially when you are counting on and need to work with the big guys and CRTC if you are going to survive.  So why spend so much time and effort on your website slamming them?

On the contrary, I don't think they have much choice. They're struggling to survive against giants with the obvious power to crush them in the name of keeping their monopolies going. How else are they going to let their own subscribers and would-be customers know their side of the story and why their bills suddenly went up, especially after the government promised them they'd do just the opposite? I don't see how else they can get their message out. Playing nice with Bell and Rogers - and the CRTC - won't do anything but leave them even further out in the cold. If they can get the public's attention, it would be foolish not do so. 

paterson1 wrote:

It is fine to be the upstart, but mixing in politics so heavily on your website will turn off as many potential customers as those that want to "stick it to the man."  Most potential customers aren't interested in your politics.  That's not why they came to the site.  They want a good deal and good service, they don't care about your business situation.  They have their own problems.

Again, cut the drama, stick to the facts, and take some ads out in the Globe and Mail, or buy some TV time.  Believe it or not Bell and Rogers might have to run their ads, since Teksavvy and the other independents are public legal businesses and don't own any television stations of their own.  But they need to be clear what they are trying to do, if they go overboard or get overly political will turn many potential customers off.

I disagree about them turning customers off. Again, how else are they supposed to get their message out? Taking ads in the Globe and Mail won't do much. Newspaper readership isn't what it used to be and it's still expensive. Doing it online in your own domain is cheaper and makes a lot more sense - not to mention cents. To use a previous metaphor, if you're going to fight Goliath, you at least need your own slingshot. This is the only weapon they can conveniently afford. And they'd be crazy not to use it to explain to disgruntled customers why they're suddenly paying more for the same service - those same disgruntled people who likely eschewed Rogers and Bell for that very reason. 

I know you like to argue with me on all kinds of issues and it can be fun at times, but even you have to admit when Bell & Rogers - each worth multi-billions of dollars - went to the CRTC and cried that they wouldn't be able to afford to expand their networks into the north, incredibly pleading poverty - something the government wants to be able to promise for a coming election - that that had no influence on a decision the same Commission swore it wouldn't make just two short years ago, insisting it was there to help consumers. 

The proof is that the CRTC, to my knowledge, has never issued a single explanation of this stunning reversal. And I can only assume it's because they don't want the public to know the truth. 

I think it's pretty obvious what's going on. And I'm not alone. I recall that when this decision came out, people on both the left and the right were outraged and were quoted as such in newspapers. (As noted, the radio and TV stations wouldn't touch this one with a 10-foot antenna pole.) When you get the left and the right agreeing on anything, that definitely tells you something.

The CRTC no longer cares about consumers (if they ever did.) It now seems abundantly apparent that their corporate friends will get whatever they want, as long as Mr. Scott is controlling the engines of this enterprise.

     Thread Starter
 

July 28, 2021 12:01 am  #12


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

Good points RA, and I did take another look at the Star article.  I hope Teksavvy and the other independents survive and thrive, but it does look like it is going to be a tough slog for them right now.

These companies need to somehow get more of the public on side or aware of them.  Still think some advertising if they can afford it would help.  They need to talk to new and more people, not their current customers who are already on side and behind them. And they need to stay away from over the top and overly emotional explanations when telling their story.  
The independents whether they like it or not will always be dependent on Rogers, Telus, Bell etc. and the CRTC.  Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Even though Bell and Rogers etc. are multi billion dollar operations, their argument will be that they are the ones spending all of the money, upgrading the systems, doing the research, and expanding the network in the north, which will never be profitable.  They were able to convince the CRTC that the independents were not paying market value for using their lines and systems.  Something like that is hard to prove or disprove.  And if for whatever reason the costs for the expansion or updates for the big techs increased, they will expect  the ISP third party providers to pay more.  Unfortunately since the third parties don't own and are renting the equipment and lines puts them at a disadvantage.

I also have some doubts regarding the head of the CRTC.  I know the commission was roundly criticized by broadcasters and media decades ago for appointing commissioners who weren't of the business, and seemed to often have a limited understanding of how the business of media works.  In the last 15-20 years  it seems to have gone the other way, to people that were career media moguls and usually from the private sector.  Are some of these individuals too close still to the business?  Could very well be, since it appears that the big techs have more sympathetic ears listening to them at the CRTC, especially the chair.

This will be interesting to see how everything plays out over the next few months.

 

July 28, 2021 9:07 am  #13


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

my compliments to paterson1 for the real world, practical, thoughts

 

July 28, 2021 10:40 am  #14


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

paterson1 wrote:

take some ads out in the Globe and Mail, or buy some TV time.

It looks like someone - namely Open Media - took your advice. This ad appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on July 17th.

OpenMedia takes out full-page Ottawa Citizen ad inviting CRTC Chair Ian Scott for beers

     Thread Starter
 

July 28, 2021 3:14 pm  #15


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

Perfect, the ball is now in the CRTC's court, and smart they ran the ad in Ottawa in the Citizen.   Hope they can run the ad again, in the business section of the Globe or National Post.  The tag to learn more or RSVP is good, so they can gage how effective the ad was and if it generated support.  

 

August 3, 2021 1:00 pm  #16


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

More pockets being lined with $s

 

February 1, 2022 11:05 pm  #17


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

Resurrecting this very old thread because CRTC Chair Ian Scott has finally defended himself after reversing a decision on lowering Internet rates (despite a government policy that demanded they be reduced) and then being spotted immediately afterwards having a drink in a bar with an old friend - the head honcho of Bell.

‘No rule was ever broken:’ CRTC chair Ian Scott says meeting with Bell executive was a drink with a friend


 

     Thread Starter
 

February 1, 2022 11:22 pm  #18


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

We all know Scott is nothing but a liar who has been bought and paid for, numerous times over, by Big Telecom, especially Bell. Absolutely disgusting.

On a side note, it was nice to see, via a tweet from my alma mater, that the Let's Talk numbers were way down this year... I'll be an even happier camper as soon as Bibic & Co. announce that the campaign has been permanently discontinued.

 

February 2, 2022 3:57 pm  #19


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

Bell is claiming the opposite, that Let's Talk set a new record this year for both the amount raised and on line messages. .  So far Let's Talk has raised $129 million for mental health initiatives.  The company apparently has a goal of $155 million. https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/bell-let-s-talk-day-sets-record-raises-8-2m-for-mental-health-initiatives-1.5756734

 

February 3, 2022 8:36 pm  #20


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

There are now calls and motions being made to get Scott to resign from the CRTC.

Don't hold your breath but we can hope...

From The Toronto Star:

CRTC chair faces call to recuse himself amid renewed questions about bias

     Thread Starter
 

February 9, 2022 2:23 pm  #21


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

CRTC Chair Ian Scott got a huge grilling before a Parliamentary Committee hearing on Wednesday, where he continued to parrot the line that everything about the stunning reversal of rates that favoured Bell and Rogers was just a correction of an error. 

'Scott said costing processes are complex, and the CRTC made a decision that was believed to be correct. After getting appeals from some telecom companies, a “thorough analysis” was conducted and “additional information from all parties” was sought, Scott said, leading to the reversal.'

Hmmm, what do you suppose was said in those "appeals" and what was in that "thorough analysis?"  I wouldn't buy what he says if I had a coupon and it was on sale for half price - something, by the way, it appears our Internet rates will never be. 


Parliamentary committee grills CRTC chair on meeting with Bell CEO, reversal of internet decision

     Thread Starter
 

February 16, 2022 6:14 pm  #22


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

     Thread Starter
 

March 2, 2022 11:08 am  #23


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

TekSavvy, my Internet provider, has asked the federal Integrity Commissioner to look into CRTC Chair Ian Scott, citing some very odd circumstances surrounding his "night out for beer" with Mirko Bibic, the CEO of Bell, just days before he rolled back a ruling that decreased prices for consumers. 

Scott, a former telco lobbyist, insists his meeting was innocent, just a drink with an old friend and no business involving Bell was discussed. 

But the provider claims to have found evidence, uncovered through an Access to Information Act, that definitely hints there could have been something else going on.

"TekSavvy provides evidence suggesting Scott tried to conceal his own misconduct after the fact...For example, in response to a request for Scott's calendar entry about his meeting with Bibic, the CRTC redacted the location, start and end times, and parts of the subject line, and also refused to provide key data and details required to verify his testimony.

"The filing notes that the only records disclosed by the CRTC, were created after Scott was photographed with Bibic.
 
"The meeting was only acknowledged through usual official channels (via the 5:57pm email) once it was already underway… Mr. Bibic appears to notice that he is being photographed; this appears to have prompted Mr. Scott to ask a member of his office staff to send an email confirming the meeting (notably without confirming its start time), containing the usual language advising the other party not to discuss any matter that is currently or imminently before the Commission." 


Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice. 

TekSavvy seeks investigation of CRTC Chair by federal Integrity Commissioner  

Read the TekSavvy complaint

     Thread Starter
 

April 29, 2022 4:04 pm  #24


Re: If You Needed Any More Evidence Of Who The CRTC Favours...

A follow-up to the latest in this ongoing story about the actions of CRTC Chair Ian Scott:

Canada’s Information Commissioner says the CRTC broke disclosure rules

     Thread Starter