| bill c-30 secret meetings As cogeco attended the Sept.2011 meeting on internet surveillance with the government, I'd like to know if someone can point me to some information regarding Cogeco's stance on this issue.
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6505/135/
Or maybe they won't say since they've signed non-disclose with the government.
Sorry if this has been asked already, I didn't find it here yet. |
|
 GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 | The meeting was probably to do with implementation, not whether or not they support the aims of the bill. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Cogeco Cable
| said by Gone:The meeting was probably to do with implementation, not whether or not they support the aims of the bill.
Well... Cogeco was publicly in opposition to such things in the past however Geist suggests these companies, Cogeco listed in attendance, "secretly supported internet surveillance legislation". I decade ago I'd confidently expect them not to be involved in encouraging such legislation; but these days, I'm unsure. Geists article / blog alludes to implicating them but not directly. |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
| But why? What benefit would there be in return for all the money they would need to spend on implementation?
I'm no fan of Cogeco, but when looking at this from a strictly business perspective it doesn't make sense for them to be overtly in favour of something that would cost them money for what is essentially nothing in return. |
|
cog_biz_useri ruin threads apparently
join:2011-04-19
Hamilton, ON | said by Gone:But why? What benefit would there be in return for all the money they would need to spend on implementation?
I'm no fan of Cogeco, but when looking at this from a strictly business perspective it doesn't make sense for them to be overtly in favour of something that would cost them money for what is essentially nothing in return.
because if they don't do it, the child pornographers win. 
--
Myth: It's only fair to pay for quality first-run movies.
Fact: Most movies shown on cable get two stars or less
and are repeated ad nauseum. |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 | That's irrelevant. Cogeco is a business. They're out to make money. They're not going to want to spend money unless they believe it will make them money.
So having said that, what benefit would this have been to Cogeco directly? |
|
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
| said by Gone:That's irrelevant. Cogeco is a business. They're out to make money. They're not going to want to spend money unless they believe it will make them money.
So having said that, what benefit would this have been to Cogeco directly?
They're in it to make money? Judging from Louis Audet's comments, the only thing they're looking for is to chase customers away.  |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 | Bazinga! |
|
| reply to brian01
If you read Dr. Gesit today he clearly spells out that CNOC supported it.
CNOC = Teksavvy, Acanac and many others.
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6506/125/
CNOC was at an event a month earlier with Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and expressed support for the lawful access bill. |
|
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to Gone
said by Gone:That's irrelevant. Cogeco is a business. They're out to make money. They're not going to want to spend money unless they believe it will make them money.
So having said that, what benefit would this have been to Cogeco directly?
There might be more direct reasons that I can't consider as I'm not in the ISP business; however their is the indirect benefit that moving towards blocking people committing one criminal act, will allow them to get their ducks in a row to block people from committing another 'criminal' act so they can move further towards eliminating customers that download more than those who don't. |
|
 dillyhammerA. Good. Start.Premium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Hamilton, ON
kudos:9
·Start Communicat..
·Cogeco Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·Caneris
| reply to Gov Spies
said by Gov Spies :If you read Dr. Gesit today he clearly spells out that CNOC supported it.
CNOC = Teksavvy, Acanac and many others.
»www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6506/125/
CNOC was at an event a month earlier with Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and expressed support for the lawful access bill.
Well, at least with the link you provided some context is available.
But CNOC "expressing support" for C-30 is about as meaningful as the CRTC "expressing support" for independent ISPs.
Doesn't. Mean. Shit.
CNOC is showing how it can "play ball".
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned. But considering every other telecom outfit has been privvy to all this and supports it, CNOC is what, 5% market share?
I'd be more worried about the other 95% of the mumblehertz.
Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Make The Switch - »openmedia.ca/switch |
|
| reply to Gone
said by Gone:That's irrelevant. Cogeco is a business. They're out to make money. They're not going to want to spend money unless they believe it will make them money.
So having said that, what benefit would this have been to Cogeco directly?
I guess they would just have the customers pay for it. "think of the children" tax. |
|
| reply to brian01
I would also assume that the corporations controlling our government have promised financial support in return for the ISPs backing this measure.
There is no way the telcos would support something that would not generate them money. Simply passing the costs on would not motivate them.
They will pass the costs on and take a massive kickback/bribe/funding incentive from we the taxpayers by way of the government |
|
| Make no mistake about it, the surveillance bill is just a formality. Government, Police and any agency can get all the info they want from your ISP they just have to ask. Which is just a formality as it's always obliged. At least with the big companies like Bell, Rogers, Cogeco..etc.
All they are asking for in this bill is a direct backdoor so they don't even have to ask just stream lining the process. As it is right now they still get everything they want, they just don't want to have to ask for it. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | reply to brian01
Down here in 'merica, Verizon gets paid a bunch of cash for each wiretap. |
|
