It has been a couple years since we first looked at the issue of applying Canadian law to block illegal content entering the country over the internet.

At the time, the case had involved a US-based website that advocated harm against a Canadian. Because of international territorial boundaries, US law enforcement was unwilling to act on the host site.

The owner of that site may have finally crossed the line. The Roanoke Times reports that Bill White has been arrested and is being held without bond, at least until the Virgina judge can review more material on the potential danger posed by returning him to the streets.

The judge was concerned about a couple postings, including one that reads:

As long was we live in a society in which laws are not enforced against Jews, Marxists and other privileged members of the bourgeoisie, I will take advantage of that and use the lawless chaos they’ve created to push my view, which is that all Jews and Marxists … should be shot, rather than debated — along with their fellow travelers and chosen pets in the Negro ‘rights’ movement.

White hosts his content on his own servers. The servers were taken down late last week, in response to a warrant authorizing the seizure of electronic files and other records “that may contain all evidence of the crime of threatening” a juror in a 2004 Chicago trial of another white supremacist.

The Canadian case is cited in the warrant, as are postings calling for the assassination of a US presidential candidate. The arrest warrant is limited to the case of threatening the use of force against the jury foreman.

The trial is expected to take place in Chicago.

Shaw has found itself caught in a squeeze between two arms of the City of Thunder Bay. A review of CRTC Decisions this year indicates that there isn’t a great deal of warmth in the relationship between Shaw and the city owned phone company, TBayTel.

There are some facilities that Shaw leases from TBayTel. A year ago, TBayTel tried to discontinue the lease arrangements, but the CRTC denied the application to withdraw service in March.

Shaw asked the CRTC to order the phone company to sell them the lines. Last Friday, the CRTC said that such an order would require a level of interference in the operations of the telco that would not be justified. The CRTC denied Shaw’s application.

Now, those lines are attached to poles owned by a combination of the phone company and Thunder Bay Hydro, which also happens to be entirely owned by the City.

Thunder Bay Hydro has been separately charging Shaw for each hydro pole that supports the plant used by Shaw, even though the wires are owned by TBayTel. But, the rates TBayTel charges Shaw includes a fee for the poles, whether telco or hydro owned. Which means that Shaw is paying double for some of the poles.

So, Shaw went to the CRTC looking for TBayTel’s rates to be changed to reflect the fact that Shaw is paying for the hydro poles separately.

Unfortunately, the CRTC said that they aren’t the right ones to provide relief:

The fact that Shaw is paying Thunder Bay Hydro support structure rates for a facility that Shaw does not own is not justification to reduce TBayTel’s PSO service rate. The Commission notes that it is not the appropriate body from which to seek relief with respect to the rates charged to Shaw by Thunder Bay Hydro.

It appears that the next step is for Shaw to go to the Ontario Energy Board. Why are they paying the electric company for wires owned by TBayTel?

Technorati Tags:
Shaw, TBayTel

The CRTC has issued a public notice to take a fresh look at a few of the telemarketing rules, showing that consumer protection continues to be a focus.

In addition, the Commission issued an Erratum, correcting a few minor errors in the original Decision on dealing with complaints in respect of its Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules.

The new public notice is calling for comments on 3 areas:

1. Political parties are exempt from the Do Not Call List (DNCL) rules, but currently, independent candidates are subject to those rules. Should the exemption be expanded?
2. Current DNCL registrations expire after 3 years, because of original concerns that people move or discontinue service. Should the registration period be permanent?
3. The CRTC has rules on acceptable times of day for auto-dialers to call people. Certain provinces have different hours. How should the conflicts be resolved?

Comments are due on December 4, with reply due December 19. A decision is expected by the end of April.

A thought – how long will it take before every number is on the DNCL, if registrations become permanent? How do we avoid a Hotel California registry?

Technorati Tags:
CRTC, telemarketing

Ericsson issued surprisingly strong quarterly results today which seems to indicate that not all equipment suppliers are feeling the same level of pain.

Ericsson has now beaten the street for the past 3 quarters. Will it be able to close out the year in the same manner?

Ericsson Canada president Mark Henderson will be returning as a keynote speaker at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit in June.

Technorati Tags:
Ericsson, Canadian Telecom Summit

There are three ways to appeal a CRTC decision.

The first and most common approach is to apply to the CRTC to review its decision and ask that the Commission varies all or some of the conclusions. To get the CRTC to even review the decision, you need to demonstrate that they made an error in law, made an error in fact, failed to consider something or that the circumstances have changed since the original evidence.

The second channel is to seek leave to appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court will deal with legal issues that arise from decisions, such as questions of CRTC jurisdiction.

The third option is to ask the Cabinet to review the decision and either overturn the decision, rewrite all or part of it or return the matter back to the CRTC for the Commission’s reconsideration with a direction based on policy.

In the case of Decision 2008-1, dealing with the use of deferral account funds for broadband expansion, all three courses of appeal were launched. Interestingly, the appeals came from consumer groups who wanted more of the money returned to subscribers and from incumbent phone companies who wanted more of the money to be used to pay for their rural broadband expansion.

Earlier this year, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the original Decision. That would be strike one, except that the Supreme Court agreed in late September to hear an appeal of the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision. So the court challenge is still alive.

On Friday, the CRTC denied the review and vary application that had been submitted by TELUS, and supported by Bell.

the Commission’s determination in Telecom Decision 2008-1 to order a rebate of the remaining funds, rather than to allow for additional process for the submission of new communities, was consistent with ensuring efficient and effective regulation. In the Commission’s view, this negates the regulatory burden and industry uncertainty that would result by initiating another public process to consider new broadband expansion proposals from the ILECs.

The regulatory route for the appeal is now closed. The umpire’s call on the judicial route has gone to the video replay booth for review.

As to the political route, it remains to be seen if the federal cabinet has an appetite to play ball by overturning the CRTC.

---

Update [December 23, 3:20 pm]
Cabinet has rejected the appeal. The only channel remaining open at this point is the Supreme Court.