Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Bell to appeal over Net neutrality in Federal Court

  1. #1
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,500

    Default Bell to appeal over Net neutrality in Federal Court

    The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ruled last month that Bell had been “unlawfully” setting a double standard by exempting its $5-a-month Bell Mobile TV app from download limits it places on subscribers to its mobile network.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02...n_6736348.html
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  2. #2
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    To be fair, the whole net/mobile cartel in Canada is a f****** bush-league embarrassment.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, itís not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  3. #3

    Default

    In the US:

    Web pioneers plead to cancel US net vote - BBC News
    Dave Lee
    North America technology reporter
    5 minutes ago


    “This week the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will decide on whether to repeal an Obama-era law that protects "net neutrality".
    It refers to the principle that all traffic on the internet is treated equally.
    The pioneers said the FCC did not know what it was doing.
    "It is important to understand that the FCC’s proposed Order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of internet technology," the open letter read. ...”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42318804


    Before Net Neutrality, There Was Radio Regulation | JSTOR Daily

    “...
    In the 1920s, radio was a bit like the early internet of the 1990s: quirky, obsession-driven, and noncommercial. Robert W. McChesney writes that hundreds of nonprofit broadcasters sprouted up in the first half of the decade, most of them affiliated with colleges or universities.

    Even those stations run by for-profit entities didn’t try to generate revenue themselves. They...”


    “...

    How did the commission make those determinations? A 1929 report explained that it considered the greatest “general public service” to be provided by profit-driven stations, which would be motivated by market forces to provide programming people wanted. Meanwhile it identified nonprofit, non-commercial stations as “propaganda” broadcasters devoted to spreading their own viewpoint rather than meeting audience needs.

    The result was a quick winnowing of stations. While the FRC didn’t turn down many license renewal applications, it offered many stations so few hours on a shared channel that they ended up shutting down. In just a year, there were 100 fewer stations.

    The big winners, unsurprisingly, were NBC and CBS. In 1927, affiliates of the two networks made up 6.4 percent of broadcast stations. Four years later, they were up to 30 percent. In terms of total number of hours and power level, they represented almost 70 percent of broadcasting. Now, commercial radio advertising flourished.

    The change did not go unnoticed. Much like with net neutrality today, McChesney writes, the ACLU and virtually all of the U.S. intelligentsia objected to commercial control of radio. Many argued that the airwaves should be regarded as a public resource.

    But the movement to...”


    https://daily.jstor.org/before-net-n...io-regulation/

    Last edited by KC; 11-12-2017 at 05:21 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •