Broadband Internet - competition stifled by Liberals ( while you are busy watching covid-19 news Trudeau slips this through).By JohnnyCanuck
While you are caught up in the Covid-19 frenzy, Trudeau is quietly slipping through orders in council, free from any parliament oversight or questioning. On August 15, 2020, Cabinet issued an order that included its expectations that the CRTC amend the terms of a decision it issued in August, 2019, which found that the rates charged by the incumbent major telecom and cable companies (such as Bell Canada, Rogers and Videotron) for internet services for at least the past four years were not "just and reasonable". https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/vmedia-federal-cabinet-condemns-canadian-families-to-higher-internet-prices-in-bailout-of-big-telcos-870332467.html
Summary: the incumbent big telecoms are spinning the line that they cannot afford to support the Liberal policy dream of broadband coverage over 95% of Canada, if they are forced to compete with each other in the cities. So without extracting any commitment from these big telecoms to actually build anything, Trudeau says 'at your service sir'.
The full text of Cabinet's decision (https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2020/08/order-in-council-responding-to-petitions-to-the-governor-in-council-concerning-telecom-order-crtc-2019-288.html) contained elements so supportive of the incumbents that lawyers for the incumbents immediately raced to the FCA with a request that the Court reopen the record and take the contents of the order and the Minister's statement into consideration in its deliberations.
I was very surprised to hear that a boot-licking entity like the CRTC had even dared to suggest that 'unreasonable' broadband prices are being charged. I am not surprised to find that Trudeau's puppeteers wait until the middle of the covid crisis to jerk his hand to signing the refutation of the CRTC's suggestion.
The LAW, the thing that forces people to do things- is only as fair as the extent of external scrutiny (duh) but something obviously messed up will at least gain enough coverage to generate a response right? Well sure, but not before a whole host of people get screwed over. In cases like first world capitalism, no amount of coverage and outrage from a legally (and morally) wronged party, can evade the concrete consequences derived from violations cited on intentionally vague parameters covered by that very same law. The past 2 years, due to limited options, I've been working for a company (can't say) that is indeed founded out of Canada.. however the (U.S.) founders had simply maintained 'permanent' residency for a number of years, allowing them to claim Canadian citizenship and therefore establish Canadian founded business status for their new brand. This matters because the whole reason for this endeavor was so the 'new' company could circumvent the (somewhat) recent additions to anti-add and anti-spam laws to prevent U.S. based marketing tactics from overpowering local Canadian business. Well it turns out not even that can stop a determined U.S. businessman from (lawfully) stealing if they see enough potential to merit investing in a system that can achieve such a theft. If you're reading this, then please, for the sake of yourself and the sake of your loved ones read and pass along this REAL (and in my opinion, utterly distasteful) admittance to allowing vague laws to enable sales representatives for businesses to quite literally steal from others (the classic sign the contract, that just so happens to be indecipherable and says the complete opposite of what the plastic-smile sales representative just told you). Please note that this link outlines law that applies to U.S. AND Canadian based customers.
THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART- https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0195-some-home-security-systems-may-be-scams
P.S. I know many reading this are going to say why are you wasting my time with this I already know better than to let a sales rep con me.. 3 reasons:
1. 80-90% of (wronged) customers will say the sales representative showed up at an interesting or 'destined' moment, providing (at the moment) so much more than just a killer deal on a sweet new sign-on product/service. They were helpers, friends, attractive, flattering, and almost seemed to understand their lifestyle and hobbies... please refer to https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/28/17172548/gdpr-compliance-requirements-privacy-notice which pretty much states your personal or any useful info- if it's ANYWHERE on the internet, it's free game for businesses to use. *this includes the ability to run credit tests without your consent/knowledge once enough info is obtained and automated programs that constantly trawl the internet for anything linked to a potential customer/area they've taken an interest in.
2. Contracts do not end with the death of the signing customer and many are a minimum of 3 years- some up to 8 for official services. Yes, the law can protect a company collecting on a contract (aka fees, monthly bills, collection bids, etc) to the next of kin, for a contract signed by the parent or spouse even if no one was ever notified about such a condition, as long as the contract was signed: the next of kin MUST pay the due in full. Meaning everything you're reading could affect you much more profoundly than you know even if you choose to never personally touch a contract, if they got your family by extension under extreme circumstances you must become involved (so better to prevent rather than struggle; simply by making sure as many people as possible are aware of this).
3. This is the information age, data in general is constantly being filtered and analysed by increasingly advanced AI, capable of spitting out easy to use, yet disturbingly effective actions and procedures to use on specific common personality types. If you don't believe me, please check out the attached picture(s). The first one is a 'chart' provided in some way to sales representatives, and it's how they get their 'in' with a paying customer. I guarantee you'll see yourself and agree that it at least somewhat illustrates the possibility of use against you. The second picture is simply a QR code meant to link any QR code scanner phone app to bring one directly to the FTC website, if possible- everyone should read the linked page from that code..
I spent valuable hours of my life (I'm 25 no joke, I work my ass off and this is my day off) to make this. It's because I've spent no less than the last 4 years listening to people cry to me (I do phone support) about how they were essentially lied to and then robbed. And it all came from a contract, a morally corrupt 'sales representative', and a complete lack of regulations in favor of protecting citizens simply because capitalism. Simply knowing they're out to finger your wallet should be more than enough to kneecap them halfway through their entirely false pitch and get them out of your hair and keep them out.
Many commentators have noticed in recent years that some people are so offended by some ideas and opinions that they think they shouldn’t be exposed to such debate, that posters of such ideas should be banned, or that the debate itself should be shut down. Should we go to to the extent of shutting down debate or criticism to protect people’s “feelings”? This forum attempts to prevent posters from making personal insults, but at what point does criticism become personal or insulting? I’m sometimes shocked at how over sensitive people can be and how little criticism they can handle. I think sometimes free speech is prevented to coddle people. Thoughts?
A former MPP wants the government to destroy freedom of speech and expression - in the interests of "fairness". Now that the LPC is trailing in fundraising for its propaganda, it wants to government to hijack the process of political messaging and campaigning. Naturally, he makes no mention of the over one billion dollars flowing from taxpayers to the left-wing CBC that campaigns endlessly against conservatism and in favor of leftism (LPC and NDP, naturally).
The left is so typical.... if you don't like something, BAN IT. If you can't get your way, USE THE IRON FIST OF THE GOVERNMENT TO FORCE IT.
We need a thread to discuss the terrible plague of Manspreading that is infecting our society!
Btw, the above statement is sarcasm (I probably have to say this or Michael will delete this thread).
What is manspreading?
Apparently it is this:
Yes apparently men are spreading their legs too much when riding transport. Not only does this take up more space, but according to leading 3rd wave feminists and social justice warriors it is a form of pecocking and men imposing their patriarchal dominance on females by presenting their junk.
This is apparently such a problem that New York City has made manspreading illegal. Not only that, but arrests have been made. Now of course the cops are primarily arresting blacks and latinos, and they make arrests at midnight when the buses are primarily empty, but that's just a minor detail.
To combat manspreading, feminists on tumblr and elsewhere have been publicly shaming men in cities such as London, New York and Toronto for manspreading via taking pictures and posting them online.
In all seriousness, feminism has long passed the point of 'fighting for equality' and now because fighting against the patriarchy for women's rights is the raison d'etre for so many people, they have to make up problems.
Dear 3rd wave feminists (male, female or other) and SJWs, you may not have noticed this but men have these things called testicles. They are male reproductive organs that are located between the legs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicle. Due to these organs, it is extremely uncomfortable not to have your legs somewhat apart while sitting if you are male.
Not only that but there is an issue of stability. Men have a higher centre of gravity. Due to that, they have a greater moment of inertia for a given mass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia. Not only that but men have smaller hips relative to their body mass compared to women. To compensate this and to avoid falling on those around you, one needs to have legs somewhat apart while sitting on a moving vehicle. This is not only an issue for men but for women that have greater upper body strength and relatively slim builds.
I can understand complaining about manspreading if someone has their legs like 180 degrees apart, but 30 degrees apart? Seriously? Has our society become so misandric that we have to publicly shame men for existing and having testicles or higher centers or gravity?
Tell a friend