shelphs

In order to compete with the new wireless providers of Wind Mobile, Mobilicity, and Public Mobile, which launched in late 2009 and 2010, Rogers launched its third wireless network under Chatr also in 2010. Upon Rogers’ release of Chatr, it began an ad campaign to distinguish it from the others by claiming “fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers.” In response, Wind Mobile “filed a complaint with…[Canada’s Competition] bureau…over Rogers’ advertising campaign” in September 2010, stating “there is no way Rogers would have access to its technical network data”, which prompted the bureau to perform a two-month inquiry into the matter. The Competition Bureau “concluded there is no discernible difference in dropped call rates between Rogers’ Chatr service and new entrants.” Negotiations were attempted by the bureau to settle the dispute, but Rogers was unwilling to address Wind Mobile’s concerns. As a result, the bureau “began legal proceedings against Rogers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under the misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act.” The case is expected to begin in mid 2012. Facts of the case will not be dissected until the Competition Act’s constitutionality is debated, for Rogers argues that the penalty of $10 million for first offences and $15 million for subsequent transgressions for false or misleading claims is criminal in nature. That is, the penalty within the act is civil and not criminal, which resultantly denies those accused of “procedural and other safeguards of the criminal law process guaranteed by section 11 of the Charter.” The safeguards include: “presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and to make full answer and defence, and the privilege against testimonial compulsion.” Rogers also argues the Competition Act violates its freedom of expression under the Charter by requiring “a company to have ‘adequate and proper’ tests of a product's performance before advertising claims about the product” can be made, which is to say, Rogers wants “to put all the risk that they are wrong on the consumer rather than them”, says Michael Janigan, a consumer advocate of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. The Charter disallows companies from knowingly making false and misleading claims, but Rogers wants protection from making statements that are not known or cannot be known to be false; that innocence should be presumed regardless of claims made on data to which they do not have access. For example, information on Wind Mobile, Mobilicity, and Public Mobile’s dropped call data. The law needs to protect consumers by ensuring they are provided accurate and fair information to make informed decisions in the marketplace. Proclamations of service performance are presented as facts and should, therefore, be based on it as well. It’s a matter of educating VS convincing, misleading. Consumers have the right to choose products based on empirically supported claims. i. theglobeandmail.com Published Friday, Nov. 19, 2010 Last Updated Tuesday, Jun. 28, 2011 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/misleading-wireless-ads-put-rogers-in-hot-water/article1806112/ ii. cbc.ca Last updated: Friday, November 19, 2010 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2010/11/19/consumer-chatr-rogers-competition-bureau.html iii. theglobeandmail.com Published Friday, Nov. 19, 2010 Last Updated Tuesday, Jun. 28, 2011 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/misleading-wireless-ads-put-rogers-in-hot-water/article1806112/ iv. cbc.ca Last updated: Friday, November 19, 2010 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2010/11/19/consumer-chatr-rogers-competition-bureau.html v. cbc.ca Last updated: Friday, November 19, 2010 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2010/11/19/consumer-chatr-rogers-competition-bureau.html vi. vancouversun.com Posted: Jan 27, 2012 http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Rogers+uses+charter+claim+fight+truth+advertising/6057561/story.html vii. vancouversun.com Posted: Jan 27, 2012 http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Rogers+uses+charter+claim+fight+truth+advertising/6057561/story.html viii. vancouversun.com Posted: Jan 27, 2012 http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Rogers+uses+charter+claim+fight+truth+advertising/6057561/story.html ix. vancouversun.com Posted: Jan 27, 2012 http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Rogers+uses+charter+claim+fight+truth+advertising/6057561/story.html

EPILOGUE Party mergers like the Liberal/NDP one now being discussed and the one in 2003 that formed the CPC are a symptom of a damaged electoral system. Canada’s system does not encourage and cultivate diversity in the strong and influential institution of a political party; rather, it promotes polarization by limiting the number of parties on the left and right by coercing them to coalesce and, resultantly, abandon policy ideals as a compromise for a pseudo-shared macro ideology that trumps a more foreign one. This lessens the diversity of representation within government and decreases the level of Canadian voters’ influence. That said, it is unlikely for the left to do nothing, especially if the Conservatives win another majority in the next election. The diversity of the parties is important, but that importance is diminished by the first-past-the-post voting system and would be further hurt by a sole left party – the CPC – that can consistently win a non-proportionally representative majority. Something would have to be done. The below table shows a strong divisionary trend between the right and left political spheres: that is, the Conservatives and every other party. 2006 (%) 2008 (%) 2011 (%) BQ: 10.5 BQ: 10.0 BQ: 6.0 CON: 36.3 CON: 37.6 CON: 39.6 GRN: 4.5 GRN: 6.8 GRN: 3.9 LIB: 30.2 LIB: 26.2 LIB: 18.9 NDP: 17.5 NDP: 18.2 NDP: 30.6 OTHER: 1.0 OTHER: 1.2 OTHER: 0.9 From 2006 to 2008, the Liberals lost 4 percentage points. The Greens gains 2.3, the NDP 0.7, and the Conservatives 1.3. From 2008 to 2011, the Liberal, Block, and Green Party’s numbers declined by 7.3, 4, and 2.9 points, respectively, while the NDP and Conservatives voter base was raised by 12.4 and 2, respectively. When people who have voted on the left of the ideological divide in the past change their loyalties, they overwhelmingly stay on the left. Assuming only former Liberals would change to the Conservatives, 2 of the 7.3 lost Liberal votes shifted to the Conservatives, leaving 5.3 to the NDP. Which is to say, assuming the trend holds, of the lost Liberal votes, approximately 27% would shift to the Conservatives and 73% to the NDP. If the current 18.9 percentage of Liberal votes were similarly divided equally between the PCP and a newly merged Liberal and NDP hybrid, the Conservatives’ numbers would be 44.7 points (27% of 18.9 is 5.1 + 39.6) and the merged Liberal/NDP Party would have 44.2 percent (72% of 18.9 is 13.6 + 30.6) of the votes. It is certainly feasible that a merger would prevent another Conservative majority, but that would depend on how the hybrid is ideologically formed and received by now Liberals. I would prefer electoral reform for a proportionally representative system, but a merger seems more likely, particularly if the next election produces another Conservative majority. In such a case, the right would have to do something. No other likely choice is available aside from a merger in a political atmosphere of a united right and divided left. It may be time to hit the streets with a message for electoral reform. iii. General Election Results by Popular Vote Percentage http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

Yes, those are certainly not real numbers. The point being made was in regards to overage usage and fees. The base rate is for more than simply bandwidth usage, as pointed out by Bonam. The UBB fees are currently ridiculously over-priced.

This poll is related to the earlier post titled Liberal-NDP Merger: A Good Move? A Likely Move?

The CRTC has permitted user-based billing (UBB) charges and has set standards for pricing. Canadian companies charge Canadians UBB fees whenever users exceed the allotted monthly download cap, which differs from plan to plan. What are Canadians being charged and what are companies' operational fees? The difference is exorbitant. Canadians are being charged 1 to 2 dollars per gigabyte over the limit and it only costs companies approximately 3 cents per gigabyte used by its customers. Read More: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/gadgets-and-gear/hugh-thompson/what-is-a-fair-price-for-internet-service/article1890596/

The Canadian political atmosphere consists of five main parties: the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Block Quebecois, and the Green Party. Of these, one represents the central-to-right political spectrum. There were two parties – The Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada – until they merged in 2003. The Conservatives won a majority government in the last election with a voter turnout of 61.1%. Of the very few who took part, 39.6% voted Conservative. The majority of votes, however, were caste for a party on the left. Despite only a minority of Canadians voting for the right, the sole right-leaning Conservative Party won a majority. Two options exist for the central-to-left parties to be more competitive in upcoming elections: to either merge or to pass legislation that changes the electoral system from simple plurality (first-past-the-post) to one of proportional representation. Jean Chretien has noted that if a merger were to happen, it would happen quickly or not at all. He supports the Liberals and NDPs becoming one whereas Sheila Copps has been vocal against it on the Liberal’s side, and Libby Davies has been similarly vocal as an NDP. Though I am strongly in favour of reform for a proportional representative electoral system, I think it unlikely. A merger is far easier to do and far more likely. But will it happen? A joining of the Liberals and NDP depend upon the differences between the two parties and if they are too great and how it would be received by Canadians who voted Liberal and NDP in the past. With the current simple plurality system in place, merging left-leaning parties is the only realistic means of battling a united right. The only question is: would a merger alter past Liberal/NDP voters to support the Conservatives in the future? If the answer is no or negligible, the two parties should merge. The details of reconciling the differences between the two parties are all that would remain. i. 2011 Election Results http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html ii. Jean Chretien and Libby Davies’s stance http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-ndp-merger-could-come-very-quickly-chrtien-predicts/article2155542/ Sheila Copps’ position on a merger http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/seeking-liberal-presidency-sheila-copps-vows-to-fight-merger/article2156921/

The Spanish law of individuals to have "the right to be forgotten" allows citizens to control information about them. This law has been used by citizens, through their government and regulatory data watchdog, to get Google to delete search results to certain information on Spaniards. An example of one of the plaintiffs who is a plastic surgeon. In 1991 a criminal negligence charge was brought against him; however, he was acquitted of all charges and wrongdoing, but a Google search of his name only produces reports on his arrest and alleged wrongdoing. The outcome of his case - that he was acquitted - is not available, though, b/c no news organization reported it. As a result, the man argues he is unfairly treated through Google's search engine. Google disagrees that it is responsible to censor such information; rather, it argues publishers are responsible. I would agree publishers are responsible but not to censor it. Instead, it is their duty to produce all pertinent information, and so, they should produce reports of the acquittal. This law could lead to a dangerous precedence. Censorship in nearly all forms is bad. Free speech leads to free access. Censorship is not the answer, fully reporting on issues is the answer. Though the above example itself is rather innocuous, with a precedent set, ability to control information by citizens/individuals can become hazardous, esp. if such allowances are granted to corporations or to reports based on evidence and result in a conviction. Burying a story of alleged wrongdoing and an eventual acquittal is different from censoring convictions. How far does this right to preserve one's own image online go - how far can it go? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12239674

I do not advocate that the station be kept off the air, I simply say that opinion personalities have nothing to do with news, which they factually do not, for they are not obligated to provide any facts. Personalities are precisely that, and they say what their personality thinks. simple. this is no way remotely close to news aside from the fact, sadly, that they are on a station that is categorized as a news station. Anyone can turn on a computer and record themselves and their views on a webcam and that is equal to a news personality in content. The only real difference, and it is so very important and comedically tragic, is that, if you may pretend, your own webcam post is a daily element of a show on a 24-hour network that is classified as a news network. Yeah, I see no problem with that. That seems natural and fair.

anything labeled news or a news program that does not adhere to the above is regretful and a disservice to the people in which it is inflicted upon.

And my point is not entertainment value but instead the most important part of news, which has nothing, ultimately, to do with entertainment for its own sake. News' entertainment value derives from the entertainment gained from learning about something happening on the domestic or international stage. It has to do with factual reports about something happening and not someone's subjective opinion about it.

The Conservatives also ambiguously presented their environmental plan with clear intent of deceiving Canadians with regard to their resolve and action toward Canada's contribution to global pollution:

This is a problem and has been a problem for some time. The Conservatives have a reputation of ignoring scientific study in place of their own agenda and unfounded viewpoint. An example of this is demonstrated in the following video:

They're watching it because it is good at being what it was designed to be - entertaining. Entertaining is fine, but when the entertainment value is more important than providing unambiguous facts and meaningful opinion to the public discourse, there is a problem. I simply don't want to see that problem replicated in Canada. An example on how negatively influential news/opinion programming can be iss the level of distrust with Obama's health care reform and the number of people that truly believe or believed 'death panels' were a reality in the legislation and the number of people who saw the likelihood that health care reform that brought USA closer to universal health care could only be a bad thing. This was made possible due to Fox News' very smart and powerful media blitz on the issue.

I have in no way stated that the news network has no legal right to exist, but I have commented on how beneficial would a Fox News style network would be for Canada and Canadians and the function of news stations. I do feel that opinion programming and opinion personalities have nothing to do with news and they do not belong on a network that is categorized as being a 24-hours news station, for opinion programming has nothing to do with news or honest debate. however, it does not have to be that way, it just is. Opinion programming belongs on a network categorized as, lets say, 'opinion politics'. the word news should in no way be associated with opinion shows that feature hosts whose views are not only known but celebrated and continually presented and constantly defended. that is not news in the tradition of journalism and news reporting, which was designed to inform the public with facts.

The Canadian Sun News TV channel has been dubbed Fox News North and when it debuts on January 1, 2011, it will duplicate the Fox News 24-hour news channel format of news/opinion programming, which is a type of programming that has never been done before in Canada. Stations that are labeled “24-hour news channels” should not have news/opinion programming in which a host is featured and his/her political opinions are not only known but celebrated and continually presented and constantly defended by the host and guests. Hosts associated with news programming need to be moderators for fair and balanced programming to exist. The pseudo-news featured on Fox by its opinion personalities is so far removed from being informative and factual that its format label – “all-news channel” – is a ridiculous and unfunny joke. The news/opinion format that includes opinion personalities in place of moderators is destructive to democracy in how it panders to ratings above all else. Though it would be nice to have highly entertaining and lively news, it is not a necessity; rather, relevant, unambiguous facts, and informative opinions are far more valuable than the bickering of polarized and, usually, uninformed people. I support Sun TV News if it does not reflect the above negative attributes that accompany news/opinion programming, but how likely is it that the new news network will put meaningful and unambiguous reporting ahead of ratings and entertainment? Vote in poll that asks the question - Is news/opinion programming good or bad for democracy? - by going to the following link: http://shelphs.wordpress.com/ To vote on your view of Sun TV News’ intentions, go to the following link: http://shelphspolitics.wordpress.com/ To watch a video on Sun News entitle 'Sun TV News...Fox News North?' go to the following link: