Skip to main content

one hand washes the other and stabs you in the back

it's bad enough that the crtc is in bed with big telecoms, backing their demands to limit internet usage for no logical reason (other than wanting to be able to bill canadian consumers more and put a choke hold on smaller competitors at the same time) but now it turns out they're both having a three-way with the cbc? send help.

the cbc is supposed to serve the public interest (then again, so is the crtc), although its role as a public watchdog isn't nearly so entrenched here as it is in countries such as sweden or holland. still, you'd like to think that they are at least dedicated to presenting a comprehensive and multifaceted debate on issues of importance to the canadian populace. but, as it turns out, they're a little reluctant.



this past week, the current, one of their flagship current events shows, aired a discussion and debate on the subject of the crtc's decision (informed by private, for-profit entities like my bete-noire bell canada) to allow telecommunications providers to cap internet usage and bill consumers when they exceed their monthly ration. after being publicly embarrassed by protest and rebuked by the government, the crtc has put the decision under review. so the cbc rightly thought this would be a good time to let canadians hear the different points of view on the debate.

invited to participate were leonard waverman, a business school professor representing the perspective of the telco giants, steve anderson of openmedia.ca, the site that started the petition to have the decision revisited and andrew wright from halifax's chebucto community net, the country's second oldest freenet (well, almost free, since circumstances force them to charge a nominal amount for the service that they provide). the idea, one assumes, was to present opinions from the points of view of corporate interests, those who are angered by the specific decision and that of the larger public. The three were invited to present their arguments, after which they would engage in a debate.

although i didn't hear the original broadcast, i'm told that wright stood his ground and pointed out errors in the statistics presented by waverman in support of the telcos arguments. apparently, calling your opponents out on their presentation is a big no-no, since wright was told afterward that he wouldn't be needed for the debate portion of the show. that's too bad, because this is someone with a lot of experience in the area of public access, beyond the issues surrounding this decision.

normally in these circumstances, i'd just listen to the show on line and see what he said to get himself uninvited to the debate party, but unfortunately, i can't do that, because the cbc chose to expunge his contribution from the portion of the show that they made available on line. so the debate that one can listen to now is free of the voice that challenged the corporate representative on his facts. way to go, cbc. for an organisation tasked with representing the public interest, you're doing a great impression of playing on the side of corporate power.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …