Trouble for Canadian Wireless Maker

Just as RIM has emerged from its patent troubles south of the border, another Canadian manufacturer has been slapped with accusations that they have copied an American manufacturer’s designs.

In what looks more like an early April Fool’s story, Victoria’s Secret has accused Montreal-based La Senza of infringing on its wireless bra.

La Senza appears to be saying the suit is without foundation. CEO Irving Teitelbaum expects this issue is getting media coverage because “it is a lot more exciting than softwood lumber.”

And more fun than deferral accounts, too. It is somewhat uplifting for us to see that wireless technology is being used in other industries – it adds a new dimension to the level of wireless support Quebec has been providing.

Your comments are welcome.

Deferral Account Appeal

I just received a copy of the 5 inch stack of paper that makes up Bell’s Federal Court Application to appeal the CRTC’s Deferral Account Decision. We wrote about this earlier in the week and I haven’t seen it picked up by the rest of the telecom news business.

There is $650 million at stake here, folks. The appeal seems to be arguing two points: that the spending on rural broadband is actually just an option for ILECs (a $480M option); and, that the CRTC over-stepped its jurisdiction in ordering the ILECs to rebate any of the money that they don’t spend on the broadband program.

Is this a case that the CRTC used poorly chosen language that allows ILECs to make the rural upgrade plan optional? The March 10 follow-up letter to ILECs has some strange language in it as well:

The proposed broadband services should be comparable to those provided in urban areas, i.e., comparable monthly rates, terms and conditions, upload and download speeds, and reliability.

The CRTC didn’t say ‘equivalent’. They said ‘comparable’. Does that mean that, as long as the ILEC provides a table indicating how the proposed services compares, it is permissible to have a slower, higher-priced offering?

In the meantime, the clock is ticking – proposals are supposed to be submitted by June 30. With a half billion dollars in Bell territory alone at stake, this appeal strikes me as something that merits wider coverage and analysis.

Local Forbearance

The CRTC has now confirmed that its long awaited Local Forbearance decision will be issued on April 6 at 4pm. There will be a lock-up from 2-4 for those people who just can’t wait to get the word out onto the news wires.

What does it all mean? There are a number of questions being addressed in this proceeding. Most importantly, it is the first CRTC Decision to be released since the release of the report from the Telecom Policy Review panel. It will be interesting to see if any aspects of the reports recommendations find their way into next week’s Decision. Watch for rulings on ‘Winbacks’ and use of Competition Law terminology.

Watch this space next Thursday, April 6, for late breaking news and analysis. Film at 11.

Update:
You know, I find it interesting that Aliant filed its original application on April 7, 2004. You could call it more of a plea for mercy, asking for relief from the pain being inflicted by Eastlink. Is there something in the CRTC’s choice of a date, 2 years less a day, for the release of the Decision?

Bamm!

meshSometimes, I feel like Emeril cranking it up another notch.

We have just received word that ADM Michael Binder will be stepping to the sidelines at The Canadian Telecom Summit to make room for his boss, Deputy Minister of Industry Canada Suzanne Hurtubise, to moderate the panel looking at the future of telecommunications and next generation networks.

Bamm!

Taming the wild west

Tom Evslin adds another voice to those who are on a lonely quest to try to partially tame the anarchy of the internet. In his entry, he notes that:

If the Internet is a law-free zone:

  1. Governments can do whatever they want there including spying and blocking. It’s naïve and illogical to think that governments are governed by law in a free fire zone when no one else is.
  2. Monopolies can do whatever they want including blocking competing services.
  3. Malicious people are free to attack not only other sites but the structure of the Internet itself including its routers and domain name servers.
  4. Threats, libel, and fraud gain immunity from investigation and prosecution by being carried out on the Internet.
  5. The Internet becomes a river in which any conspirator can wade to avoid the bloodhounds of law enforcement.
  6. There are no laws PROTECTING privacy in a law-free zone.
  7. SPAM is as legitimate as any other activity.

For a couple years now, I have been campaigning on a similar platform, especially concerned about Evslin’s item 5.

We’ll be looking at this issue in a special session at The Canadian Telecom Summit in June. Speakers include D/Sgt Paul Gillespie, one of the world’s leading experts in law enforcement tactics to combat child exploitation. You can also check out an earlier posting about this subject.

Scroll to Top