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:

Agnosticism the belief that it's impossible to know if a God or Gods exists; that ultimate knowledge is unattainable. Atheism the belief that no God or Gods exist Theism the belief that a God or Gods do exist Deism the belief in an all-knowing creator that is indifferent and unconnected to all religions

I have searched for it at gc.ca, but I have had no luck. Is it out there on an official site?

so, can you provide proof that the environment is not the most important issue on most canadians' minds?

k. Yes, my videos were trying to portray the Conservatives in a negative light with the facts. Yes, with the facts. Please, as I have posted earlier, please confirm that my facts are accurate. The main argument is not that the Conservatives simply wouldn’t grant the facility another three years of operations; rather, it showed how the Minister of Health said that additional funding was needed and yet, he and the Conservatives cut the additional funding that was needed. That clearly states how the Conservatives feel about research, empirical evidence, and facts. The doctor cannot address why the Conservatives have done what they have done, be it for their political ideology or their religious or moral standards – correct. He can’t say why the Conservatives have acted as they have, i.e., cut funds from a program that the Minister of Health said “more research was needed.” (if you are confused, please view the original sources, which have been cited). Please review the facts. No valid and, therefore, arguable points are made until… Yes, at the Standing Committee of Health, Fry was showing, successfully, how Tony Clement’s points were not valid because his “evidence” was not peer reviewed. A peer-reviewed document is one that is confirmed to be accurate and agreed to by the scientific community, and to do otherwise suggests special interest and manipulation of the public. (always seek confirmation from third-party sources for anything – do you blindly believe everything everyone tells you, especially your government?) As for Clement’s claim” “Is it ethical for health care professionals to support the administration of drugs that are of unknown substance or purity or potency?” Health care professionals are not supporting such drugs, what they are doing is understanding a fundamental reality: that addicts as vulnerable and marginalized as those that the InSite facility attract are safer when they shoot up under supervision; the community as a whole is safer; and, said addicts are more likely to seek help for their addiction problem in such an environment. Yes, addicts are still shooting up, but what solution do you have: turn Canada into a police state and force persons on the streets into rehab? Is force your answer? Will force truly address the problems of an addict who is psychologically troubled; that is, addicts’ problems stem from personal, emotional issues, and force and imprisonment will not help. As for the last portion of the quote you used – you don’t find that it oversimplifies and over-sensationalizes the issue? Yes, I agree with Tony Clement if we lived in an ideal world, but we don’t – we need to look at facts and what actually works. Compassion is allowing addicts to seek our help – the opposite would be force, for, again, force wouldn’t actually address the underlying problem. as for your quote from the Standing Committee of Health “there were no difference between the two years with respect to the various indicators of drug-related crime”, is rather absurd. The government, the very body in question is the Standing Committee on Health, so their evidence is in question – that’s the whole point of this debate, and so, I’m surprised you would quote them as a point of argument. Besides that, I can’t access the page you referenced, so I can’t give a further damning argument than the fact that you quoted a questionable reference. And, yes, I am so pleased that the talent of misleading has not been lost on you. bravo! You so expertly took Kathleen Cummings’ quote out of context. Bravo! Yes, bravo, you clearly did not review the facts. Kathleen Cummings’ quote: “it is more cost effective to provide prevention", in context, refers to how the Conservatives’ anti-drug plan is not cost effective, i.e., that the Harper plan does not account for prevention, which is also known as harm reduction, and known to reduce costs for force and… (watch the video again). Isn’t that more important than providing a place for addicts to shoot up? No, the Conservatives do not have a harm reduction (a preventative) plan, and that’s why people are upset. Please, please, research second, third, fourth, and fifth independent views. Don’t simply believe what Conservatives tell you. No-one should simply believe what any party leader or party member says. Confirm all statements. Please. And what is vastly more important than “spending taxpayers’ money on a place [for] drug-users to shoot up?” were you not paying attention. Providing such a place decreased crime and increased the number of addicts who sought help and guidance for their addiction problem. Really, don’t make things so black and white (the world we live in is not black and white). Look at what works. Look at the facts. Morals and ideals and opinions should be based on evidence and facts of proper actions. Do you truly disagree with this?

why? be specific and cite resources when necessary or if applicable.

"it remains a poor strategy compared to taking action to reduce illegal druge use..." Did you even watch the video, confirm the facts, for harm reduction does just that: reduce illegal drug use. action? you may very well be confused on the issue of action. action is not people telling you action is taking place, it's when policy actually produces that result, which harm reduction clearly does. does confuse facts with propaganda. please, please, search for second, third, and fourth opinions that are impartial as they can be, and then you will see the truth.

and excluding all else that has been argued in order to focus on the fundamental point of my videos, which everyone pretty much does not focus on: the obvious disregard of public opinion and public intelligence on the part of the Conservatives. both videos clearly show how the Conservatives attempted to/successfully mislead and deceived the public. granted, all politicians can be described in this light, which is sad, but the Conservatives have done this on very important issues - domestically and internationally. please, please, instead of believing everything or anything that comes out of any politician, search for second, third, and fourth opinions, and once you begin to do that, the Conservatives have very little to stand on. seriously, watch the video again, and confirm everything. confirm facts.

yes, but how would you reduce illegal drug use? (and please remember that safe-injection sites do help reduce illegal drug use as the video points out). do you suggest we force users into correctional facilities and make them stop using? will that actually work? does that solve the problem that made them first turn to drugs? does that give them control in fighting their drug problem? if they are not receptive, rehabilitation will not work, i.e., force will not work. please, provide an alternative, for the Conservative's alternative includes force and is strikingly similar to the extremely unsuccessful 'war on drugs' in the USA, which also uses force and little else. ...both ignore harm reduction measures.

Are Conservatives genetically predisposed to being more fearful? An article entitled “Political view ‘all in the mind’” was published/posted by BBC on September 18, 2008 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7623256.stm). The study conducted in Nebraska was of a small scale: out of 46 volunteers, those who had strong political views and agreed to take part in the second part of the experiment were exposed to images and sounds while their physiological responses were observed/recorded. The researchers concluded that people who have an increased perception of threat in the world in which we all live are more likely to be right wing voters; therefore, our innate perception of reality and threat contributes to our political mind-set, and that is why it is so difficult to change other’s minds on political issues. What are your thoughts on this? I am particularly interested to read what Conservatives think of this study.

Please read and view the cited sources before dismissing the videos. Everything contained therein is accurate, and please confirm this for yourself. After you have verified the truthfulness of my argument, please tell others, please tell others of the video. Comments?