Collaboration

Internet activists up in arms over Roger's hijacking of Web pages

Rogers Communications Inc. is drawing fire for what some critics are calling a violation of Net neutrality. It appears that Rogers is testing the deployment of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology to splice into customers' Web traffic, inserting its own messages into a Web page.

Rogers Communications Inc. is drawing fire for what some critics are calling a violation of Net Neutrality. It appears that Rogers is testing the deployment of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology to splice into customers' Web traffic, inserting its own messages into a Web page.

Below is an example:

rogers-google.jpg

The screen grab shows a Rogers-Yahoo branded customer service message at the top of the Google home page with a warning that the customer is near their download limit.

Los Angeles-based technology consultant and Internet activist Lauren Weinstein wrote on his blog:

What the blazes is all that ISP-related verbiage taking up the top third of the page? Why would Google ever give an ISP permission to muddy up Google's public face that way?

Rogers on Monday has confirmed that the company is experimenting with the technique as a customer notification system.

Rogers spokeswoman Taanta Gupta said to Wired News, "We're trying different things, and we'll test customer response."

The opt-out present for future account status messages on the Rogers' page does not appear sufficient to pacify irate users. Indeed, Internet chat groups were full of angry customers, with one user even going as far as to post on the Net Neutrality Squad board that Rogers was running afoul of the Telecommunications Act.

What is your opinion of what Rogers is doing?

About

Paul Mah is a writer and blogger who lives in Singapore, where he has worked for a number of years in various capacities within the IT industry. Paul enjoys tinkering with tech gadgets, smartphones, and networking devices.

423 comments
Absolutely
Absolutely

The principle of property ownership might hold the key to a lot of "subtle" issues of "privacy" swirling about the Internet & the less reputable lawyers' to-do lists. http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2394162 [i]For MS to claim ownership they would need to at the least pay for the power it consumes while it performs the MS owned software instructions[/i] That there is what I would have called "the stuff of a good discussion." This here ain't bad, either: http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2400967 That's why I replied to it, without insult. You might notice, I have a skill for that. I'm trying to cut way back.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

https://your.rogers.com/about/legaldisclaimer/TOS_Eng.pdf With sincerity, I suggest people read thier own providers contracts in detail too, ignoring assumed rights which may be thus waived when accepting the agreement. Page 3 forward discusses thier obligations (none really, buyer beware) and what rights you afford them and thier partners, including the intrusuion of bandwidth.

whistl3r
whistl3r

More like an explicit act of 'Invasion of Privacy'.

nentech
nentech

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2394162 For MS to claim ownership they would need to at the least pay for the power it consumes while it performs the MS owned software instructions I wrote that before I lost all sense of humour about this discussion Not a very good post Off topic and rambling How stupid of me giving away tactics Anyway I wish the written English language would keep up with the spoken English language Sorry about my choice of spelling and grammar I tend to type how I speak (Most of the time anyway) Sometimes I choose a more international type of spelling like colour over color Had some spare time just thought I would look it Enjoy your weeks end Col Ps I liked casachs replies/posts as well Insults? No had not noticed

whistl3r
whistl3r

I agree they have the right to monitor data, but they do not reserve the right to monitor specific data packets of a 'Individual'. Also, signing the document doesn't implicitly state you waive your 'Constitutional Rights'. Another example of defrauding culture. It's a clear cut case of breeching 'American & Canadian Constitutional Rights'; then again it's not so clear cut for those (dullards) whom believe they can exploit it. [b][i]Section 8 of the Canadian Charter, grants the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.[/i][/b] http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003/countries/canada-footnotes.htm#ftn786 This explicitly states the 'Right to Privacy'. It also suggests that Rogers' is gathering information against their customers will. However, [b]IF[/b] data were gathered from the [b]SUM[/b] of [i][data][/i] not targeted specifically at an individual then it would be within Rogers' right to conduct business, but that is not Rogers' case.

nentech
nentech

I will present this Any monitoring of private communications is an invasion of privacy It is impossible for this to happen without Rodger?s monitoring the communication between the customer and the source I have to go now so will check back after the weekend

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Perhaps you can iterate how that breaches their contract and, worst of all, Canadian Constitutional Rights. Specifics though, not emotional generalizations.

Absolutely
Absolutely

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2394162 I [u]was[/u] only worried. http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=248296 Now, I'm sure that the right to privacy needs to be formally, legally defined in terms of rights to life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness, as each applies to specific technologies & techniques. Having posted that, I must admit to Oz, Rogers is not the worst ... at whatever term one chooses. To me, it's an "invasion of privacy" and violation of property rights, but that's the Jeffersonian in me taking Franklin at his word and being vigilant. In the scheme of things, there are far worse things happening, so "waste of time" might not be entirely inaccurate -- depending what one does with one's time instead. Using narrow beams of sonic vibration to counterfeit the effect of voices in one's head is a human rights offense. life in prison without possibility of ever seeing the sky again for anybody using this technology without prior written consent of recipient http://www.holosonics.com/PR_AE.htm PS, nentech [i]Sorry about my choice of spelling and grammar[/i] You're spleling & grammer is fine. [i]I liked casachs replies/posts as well[/i] Me too. [i]Insults? No had not noticed[/i] Excellent.

jdclyde
jdclyde

Are you just wishing you were somewhere else when you choose this or are you fairly new to the US and NY? "When in Rome....."

Absolutely
Absolutely

But, I also like the gist of what you're saying. However, I think the argument for privacy from [u]corporate[/u] intrusion should be made on the basis of property rights, as the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure -- in the United States, as I understand it -- is traditionally understood as a right of individuals, intended to limit the powers of the state, and not one that has any established application to the interactions of private citizens.

apotheon
apotheon

You make a convincing case, except for one detail: "[i][b]IF[/b] data were gathered from the [b]SUM[/b] of [/i][data][i] not targeted specifically at an individual then it would be within Rogers' right to conduct business, but that is not Rogers' case.[/i]" I don't recall any specific evidence for your referenced fact that Rogers is behaving inappropriately in this sense. Are you asserting that by automating the process of inspecting packets and inserting data into the customer-bound stream Rogers is somehow engaging in a violation of privacy? How is this the case if no information is stored, used in individual metrics, or viewed by a human being as a result of the data in those inspected packets? If your assertion is simply that automated packet inspection is [b]itself[/b] a violation of rights, there are a lot of firewalls out there that violate the law. I find this state of affairs unlikely. edit: None of this means I condone Rogers Communications' behavior, of course.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

nentech, sorry to throw all this at you but I have been called to task too many times here by the regular 'clowns without a clue' and no ability to research the issue themselves, therefore I will simply use this reply to prove them all wrong as well. It's not a direct poke at you, your comments have been very reasonable and noncombative. When the contract is accepted you have waived such rights to privacy. You can read it yourself: https://your.rogers.com/about/legaldisclaimer/TOS_Eng.pdf They have the right to monitor your internet usage, by a customer's agreeing to the service and thus the service contract too, you waive much of that right to privacy, with exception of Rogers sharing your personal identification with others. [i][b]We have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor or investigate any content that is transmitted using the Services or the Equipment.[/b] We may also access or preserve content or information to comply with legal process in Canada or foreign jurisdictions, operate the Services, ensure compliance with the Service Agreement or any Policies, or protect ourselves, our customers or the public.[n] We reserve the right to move, remove or refuse to post any content, information or materials, in whole or in part, that we decide are unacceptable, undesirable or in violation of the Service Agreement.[/b][/i] In other words, they can monitor useage but are not obligated to protect you from potentially undesireable content by monitoring it. [i]Unless otherwise specified in the Service Agreement, we may change, at any time, any charges, features, content, programming, structure or any other aspects of the Services,[/i] They can even use your ideas, graphics, photos etc. that are posted in publicly accessible areas of the Internet. [i]Content 18. We do not own content that you make available for inclusion on the Services (including the Internet Services). However, with respect to content you make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant us the following world-wide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licenses, as applicable: ? With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video content: the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform, publicly display and communicate by telecommunication such content on the Services solely for the purpose for which it was made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include content on the Services and terminates when you remove or we remove such content from the Services. ? With respect to all other content (other than photos, graphics, audio or video): the perpetual, [b]irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, communicate by telecommunication, publicly perform and publicly display, and to incorporate it into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.[/b][/i] So much for intellectual property. I can't believe that, with all the information available from the CRTC, FCC and Rogers, nobody has seen they are well within their rights to serve a banner ads or report information onto your screen or promote a new service to customers, as are all other providers. It's just as I have stated and defended to these idiots all along, to a pile of flaming, name calling, character defamation etc. Just a good thing we aren't conducting business, everyone would be up the creek by now. For a bunch of techs, you sure as hell don't know how to do your homework very well. Again, nantech, as you have not directly flamed me and argued that I cannot prove my comments, as several others have, I apologize to you for the long reply and hope you don't see this as an attack on your own unbiased comments in any way.

nentech
nentech

Why don't you post some links to the to the Rodgers contract. So there can be a debate about the contents of that contract. So there can be a debate about what changes need to be made to the law. That would be better than you just telling everybody else they are wrong Then expecting them to backup their opinion Why don?t you backup your opinion first just for a change? Instead of the constant generalizations Col

JamesRL
JamesRL

Calculations in metric often involve moving decimals. You don't have to memorize how many feet or yards in a mile. No worries about imperial or "standard" gallons (standard=american), Long tonnes, freezing and boiling points of water, etc etc etc. Scientific research, even in the US deals in metric. You've heard them say CCs and Mikes on "ER", thats metric too. No doubt if we tried to convert young people in Canada to imperial that would think we were crazy because metric is so much easier. Now converting from imperial to metric, thats not easy, been there done that. James James

JamesRL
JamesRL

Fundamentally Canada has much less government debt. We have been running a federal surplus since 1995 and most provinces are doing the same. We also have a lot of oil. We don't need common dolar for trade, we have NAFTA. We may be much smaller than the US, but we are a better credit risk. Taking the US currency would mean letting the US dictate our fiscal policy and thats not in our interest. So I can't see us adopting US currency any time soon. James

nentech
nentech

I remember the problems some of us had back in school with measurements Some found it very hard to get to grips with the fractions I would like to see the world moving slowly to a simple standard English is the best choice It is the most used language I would like it to become easier for people to learn Metric is not that hard Unless you have twelve fingers Money Still not worth talking about You?d think we would have some common cents by now Col

jdclyde
jdclyde

Do you think they would go for the North American equivalence to the Euro? Lots of talk about trying to melt the three countries together as one big trade partner. Just think, cheap products produced in Mexico brought up to the US and Canada. Life will be good, until there are no more jobs in the US and Canada, so there isn't anyone left to BUY the cheap products.....

jdclyde
jdclyde

I remember being tested in chemistry and some math classes on metric. The basic idea is sound, but dang, there are a lot of deca/hecka/smeckas to remember..... ;\

jdclyde
jdclyde

It doesn't matter at all to the discussion at hand. Does that answer your own irrelevant question? B-) Mine was a curiosity on his choice of words. Yours was just looking to be a dick. Both worked out just fine.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

From freinds and family still overseas, it is the same old issue, Brits don't want Euro's. It would be like the US adopting teh Canadian dollar (when the US dollar is strong of course). The common folk of GB make me look humble, pride in their countru is not as flaunted as you would see in the US but it is a strict, silent pride that no country will walk on. For this reason, there is an instinct to never let another country dominate or dictate the British way of life, which includes the money with QEII on board. The GBP is still strong, while some feel it 'is moving ahead with the times', the staunch Brits will never let it happen. Perhaps in a younger generation but not with all the old money around. I think it'll be a cold day in he11 before Brits bend to the Euro's. It may happen one day though, Middle Eastern countries have already been cashing in their billions/trillions in US investments to move forward and trade with 'Eurodollars' instead of the US 'Petrodollar'.

nentech
nentech

I was not upset or annoyed It?s just a personal choice I did give my reasons Metric USA Very funny If the UK and the rest of the EU adopt a standard/common language, currency and measurement system What are we going to call ours? American English (That?s a given and still funny) Us dollars (Not worth discussing) Us imperial measurement or American imperial measurement (USIM, AIM) Long live the presidents Leaders of the great American empire (It?s a joke) Or should it be US standards of measurement or American standard measurements (USSM, ASM) The whole thing could be part of a US system of standards Or American system of standards (USSS, ASS) Col

Absolutely
Absolutely

Whether it was pertinent or impertinent is an equally fair question to pose to you in return.

jdclyde
jdclyde

Was not asking you to change your mind, nor pointing out that you were wrong [i](of course anyone that disagrees with me has to be wrong, right? ;\ ) [/i] It was just your choice of wording on choosing a form of the word that is non-standard here in the states, that is easily answered based on your background, the people you associate, and the location of clients. US adopt Euro anything? Not likely. Funny how the US government gave up on metric. I work for a company that supplies infrastructure to the State/Cities, and they had REQUIRED all prints be done in metric. That ended about two years ago, and now everything is back to "standard" measurement. As for "The Euro", I have heard from several in the UK that it is NOT in their favor to use it, and are not happy with it.

nentech
nentech

Wishes they were somewhere else at sometime In their own country or another I have to deal with people in other nations so I am not always at home I also have family overseas Been to Rome enjoyed it This is an international forum If I say I prefer UK English I may get told by someone not in the UK I am wrong Same with US English It?s a no win argument Besides there is nothing anyone can say that will change my mind I have already heard it all Do you think the US will adopt Euro English? I am already hearing the arguments in my head when/if it happens I am remembering the change to metric at the same time Col Ps may be moving overseas so I have to practice

Absolutely
Absolutely

My data are records of my: activities - drafts of essays, programs, music property - software, legal compressed music files, financial records I created them all or purchased them for the seller's price, and I own the data, Absolutely. I don't pay any ISP to be custodian of any of my data, only to transmit a few, at my request, on occasion. I pay a premium, for broadband, to have prompt response to those requests. Thanks for clarifying, whistl3r.

whistl3r
whistl3r

[b][i]data[/b][/i] is not OWNED by anyone besides the individual whom generates it.

Absolutely
Absolutely

I try to encourage people with good ideas, like that one, to be more talkative, as there is a general shortage.

seanferd
seanferd

whistl3r is referring to aggregate customer data with no personally-identifiable information?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You're right, that would make life a little hard. What I am referring to is the long weekend escapes. Example: The Okanagan Valley is unbelievably gorgeous, especially in the summer (Google it up to have a peek). It is a major party zone though, Penticton and Kelowna have both had thier annual fesitvals shut down due to rioting and too much summer partying. On a long weekend, THOUSANDS of teens and college kids head out for a wild party weekend. It's like BC's Fort Lauderdale for weekend and spring break partying. SO teh police setup roadblocks on the highways, obviously if you are 6 hours out of your home town and have a trunk ful of beer, you are out to party. For this reason they search and sieze anything they find. Obviously if you are mature and appear responsible, the level of lenience will increase over 6 teenagers squashed into a Honda Civic. For this reason, I knewthat the card I carried was appropriate, it clearly showed that I nuderstood my rights and wasn't going to be treated like a teenager. In most cases the kids are underage anyway, in others the alcohol is open for the long highway party (it really does get pretty crazy, I did it too when I was a kid). When I say highway, I mean 2 lane road winding through dangerous mountains for about 8 hours and the odd one horse town popping up from time to time. B.C.'s interior is really something else! But kids die on the highways every year, from drinking and driving to the party zones, at least they aren't able to kill me too this way.

apotheon
apotheon

Is it illegal to have alcohol in your car in Canada? If so -- how would you get booze home from the store? What exactly is the justification for searching vehicles and confiscating alcoholic beverages?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

These roadside checks are actually pretty good. When I was a teenager they were a drag but now I see the benefit. They usually have a 40' trailer parker on the side of the road and it FILLS over the weekend with all the confiscated booze. I always wondered if iit ended up at the cold beer store to be resoldto be reconfiscated again. We have cold beer stores and now private liquor stores instead of the Crown's standard 'government dairy', which only sells warm beer, Safeway and 7-11 doesn't sell beer up here of course. But now that I am older and have had a son go through that age too, I am glad they are doing it. The guy was pretty cool, as are most RCMP, his smirk said 'beaten by a smartass' and he knew he couldnt play tough cop. Had he falsely arrested me in order to search the truck, it could have been an issue as my vehicle was clean anyway, just as I had already told him it was.

Absolutely
Absolutely

I'd report that scumbag to his boss, and have it printed in the local rag. "Officer dipsh*t threatened to unlawfully arrest Mr. Media, NEXT time, because Mr. Media knows his rights and doesn't agree to unlawful search or seizure THIS time."

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I had a wallet size card that said I was willing to offer my name and other information strictly for the puepose of identification. It stated that I would not agree to the collection of any fluids, or search of my person or vehicle unless I was under arrest. If I was under arrest I was to be told what for and read my rights and was not obligated to offer any further information until I was able to contact my lawyer. If I was not under arrest it is my right to proceed after identification or issuance of citation. When heading out on a long weekend, it's common to see a roadblock they random search vehiclles and seize [i]any[/i] liquor found (opened, in the trunk or anything, it's gone). I had the balls to pull that card out once when they asked if they can inspect the vehicle, the RCMP officer read it, smiled and said have a good day, your not under arrest THIS time. Don't think I'd try it again though.

Absolutely
Absolutely

I don't know that the right to be secure against unreasonable search & seizure has never been argued, nor whether it's been included in a court decision on privacy issues amongst private citizens. I just think its purpose is to protect us against state intrusion, and that property rights offer more clear-cut standards, as direct logical consequences to the right of property ownership.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Sorry, I was actually commenting on Wistl3rs assertions, not your own.

apotheon
apotheon

I was questioning whistl3r's assertions, not yours, in this case.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

As has been suggested already, the breach of Constitutional Rights must be in an unreasonable manner. When you accept the contract, which is done without signature by agreeing to understanding the contract (verbally or online), you allow the use of your personal information to be shared with associated partners of Rogers too. So they can send you an ad by email if they like, and will usually do so in an pot in basis. If thiw is unreasonable, then the customer should still be able to take Rogers to court for any third party advertising (as an example) because thier personal information has been shared (even though they accepted the agreement). A bit wordy, hope you're still with me here. That would also mean that any time you fill out a contest ballot and include your email, name and address, then accept the fine print stating it will be used for merketing, then you could sue anyone who ever shared that information and the party who sent the you junk mail. That would be 'reasonable' sharing of personal information of course. So even thoug there is a Consitutional right to provacy, that right [u]can[/u] be waived by your acceptance of a 'reasonable' contract, as long as that information is not used in an unreasonable manner of course. In the case of testing a customer usage notification system, I don't think that is seen as unreasonable misuse of customer bandiwdth by the ISP. If they had rolled it out perhaps it would be an issue, but not as a field test.

whistl3r
whistl3r

[i]As far as Civil Rights, believe me, I am adamant about my rights. But by ACCEPTING SOMEONE'S TERMS OF SERVICE, you are agreeing to THEIR terms of service. Nothing is being pushed on you, you are not forced to give up any of your Constitutional Rights, which MAINLY pertain to the government restricting you. These rights were put into place not to protect you from greedy corporations, but from teh government applying unrealistic changes to your freedoms.[/i] I don't think you cognize YOUR/Others rights. Constitutional Rights & Bill of Rights is not restricted explicitly between the Citizen and Government. Constitutional Rights and Bill of Rights were designed for daily life and against Business, besides Government. Nothing is being pushed on a Consumer? I call BS. If Rogers, case in fact, is the only available resource for technological data services within that immediate area their ideologies and policies are being pushed, usually defined as a Monopoly. The usual TERMS OF SERVICE is between 20-50pages; Who in their right mind is going to read 50 pages of incoherency? A Terms of Service was designed to exploit this exact system that was set in place. By the time a user gets 5 pages into the TOS, never being able to read the [B]Pertinences[/b], which are washed under incoherences. That, Sir, is most certainly against a users will and forced upon an individual. Yes, it could also become a civil matter and quite possibly get Rogers sued, like many have been. [i]The text of the amendment is: ? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ? This doesn't mean tha you are free to say what you want.[/i] I'm sounding like a broken record.... Sir, you have definitely took the Constitutional Rights out of context, as 90% of people do. They are not [i]explicitly[/i] written between the Citizen and the Government. The Constitutional Rights & Bill of Rights is for the protection of the Citizen from Government(s), Business and other Individuals. However, berating someone or discriminating against an individual is not considered freedom of speech. Yes, everyone has the same rights, no matter what country you live in... It's just a matter of how many stand up for their birth rights and acknowledge them. Rights are moral, the 'Right' to do anything you like does not apply, it's what's 'Right' morally, with Just cause. Unfortunately, Governments no longer stand by heritage nor do they even have any sense of Moral obligations to their citizens, it's all being taken over by Corporate Law and exploiting the system and taking the Consumer for granted. It's the [b]Countries Responsibility[/b] and the individuals to stand by these obligations and uphold them, obligations being the Constitutional Rights & Bill of Rights. However, there is no country, even the United States of America, even stand by their own heritage. [i] As far as Rogers sending user details on bandwidth limits to your computer screen, thats not private information, it is THEIR information and is used as a measurement tool for their billing system. Without it they have no way of tracking or billin gusage. Quite legal actually, isn't it?[/i] It is YOUR information, the data does not belong to Rogers. No one can simulate the same amount of keystrokes, search methods, queries or data entries or the amount of time you spend on the internet. Rogers does not own, nor can they use that data to specifically target you. Sure, they [i]may[/i] own the equipment, but that does not state they explicitly own the data that is generated from that equipment. The data generated is YOUR DATA, much like the thoughts of a pea shaped brain. If they want to gather statistical data that's 'Ok', but when that statistical data is impeding on someone's Privacy that's invasion.

nentech
nentech

You wrote ?Must have taken a while to come up with such a well thougt out reply, bery witty indeed.? Well I like to take the time to check my spelling I also like to reread my replies twice before posting them I posted this reply to Absolutely at 01/11/2008 @ 05:35 PM (PST) http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2401074 My reply to you at 01/11/2008 @ 05:59 PM (PST) http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2401081 Gosh a whole 24 minutes Must be getting old or was it because I was sick Still recovering I even agreed with you in one part of my reply You wrote in another reply ?No, you're not being clever, quote the opposite. There have been far more capable peers here than you.? Make up your mind will you ?I don't try to censor anyone. UNlike yourself who seemingly can't take objective opinions without getting all pissy and whining about how unfair I am being to others.? As for censorship apothen got it right in his reply http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2401422 Pissy and whining You are joking aren?t you? Good move on your part whining to me about whining Reread your own posts You wrote ?As for OPINION based discussions. I've been lurking about here for more than 7 years, which is nothing to brag about and no big deal but you seemtonot understand how these discussions normally flow. If I was to offer an opinion, which is all I used to do, ut was instantly challenged by the majority of peers as unqualified and unsupported. Opinion wsa unwelcome and only facts, with links were acceptable. A discussion such as this would instantly be recognized as a legal issue that has no legal basis..? So what Things change get use to it Time marches on You wrote ?So for you to wander in and start preaching the discussion gospel is simply speaking from an unqualified perspective.? Religion I was wondering when you would get to that I am qualified enough to know a bully when I see one Since when has it been ok to insult people the first time you talk to them You wrote ?As a technical website, it has always been a matter of fact and certainty, such unqualified opinions have been rightly named 'factopinguess' by a former peer, and that seems to hit the nail right on the head. This thread is FULL of factopinguesses and no real fact, which is why it is such an emotional blast of opinions with no consideration of the 'facts', which are the legality behind the issue.? If you look at the start of this thread in the discussion you will see my reply to whistl3r That reply was a personal opinion You did not have to reply Things change get use to it If you don?t like it stop reading Stop making excuses What is the correct way to present a rant? How should a tantrum be presented? Factopinguesses is not a real word I do enjoy the Friday Yuk It is always so technical and full of facts I will repeat what I wrote elsewhere The subject of this discussion was The technology and ISPs customer and public relations Not my fault if you did not understand it From your first post in this discussion http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2386174 Oz_Media writing about the technology ?PERHAPS, such a system will be used for a low cost subscriber base, you simply do not know, nor do I of course? Oz_Media writing about ISPs customer and public relations ?In the article, whch to many seem to have failed to read, comments were "We're trying different things, and we'll test customer response." This does not mean a permanent rollout nationwide but a test build. And those do get rolled live once in a while just to see how people will take it out of context and go on a riot over it. They've been doing similar for years, as has Telus and most other providers, including your own.? From your second and third posts in this discussion http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2386176 http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2386179 Oz_Media introduces Microsoft into the discussion ?It' slike MS, they OWN the software you have licence to use on your machine, therefore they can add to it what they want to. YOU don't own it, you rent a license..? ?Microsoft OWNS your browser It's not YOUR browser, it's Microsoft's. You simply lease a license to use Windows on your PC, you don't own it, Microsoft does.? We could have had a discussion about the legality behind the issue. I would have liked to exchange opinions about it and the differences between Canada Law and US Law Most of the time I like to read about others personal opinions and beliefs on the subjects I try not to Judge But you were too busy flaming everyone It?s to late now Got the clue yet?

Absolutely
Absolutely

LOL, I guess you found a few people requesting objective evidence of their claims. You really do not believe that expressions of opinion are not also common around here. In fact, there's plenty of both, just like meatspace. I feel like having a public conversation about privacy on the Internet here, and your opinion that this discussion is a waste of breath is noted. That's just your opinion. You can take part in that discussion, or keep dropping seagull turds on it. But I plan to keep discussing the original topic, and if it's important enough to you that I change that plan, your option is to pay me. A lot.

apotheon
apotheon

While I don't see what Oz_Media has been doing as attempted "censorship", per se, I understand nentech's position. Probably half of Oz_Media's posts in this discussion have centered around his attempts to get people to shut up and stop expressing opinions that disagree with his. to Oz_media: As for that response to Absolutely, Oz, I think you've just invented an entire point of contention that wasn't there. You're assigning some kind of theory of disliking facts to Absolutely -- something that is absolutely not true of him at all, and not implied by anything he has said. You're inventing straw men, Oz. Stop it. It's amusing that you invent such straw men to try to make it seem like those who disagree with you are logically deficient, when in fact the entire post to that effect was nothing but one big, fat logical fallacy.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Perhaps you haven't been around long enough to remember the trench warfare that established this forum's ground rules. No emotional, 'factopinguesses' are accepted. If you are going to make an assertion, it must be supported by links or it is dismissed as biased BS. (My failure to do so initially in this thread was pointed out too, shortly afterward I hear complaining that I started out with fact and not opinion) You seem to forget that this forum was built on a battle of facts. It wasn't that long ago, I was sure you were lurking about here, teething at that time. As I've said before, this was a right wing, pro-war, pro-Bush forum for many years, only revently have 'they' gone into hiding after realizing many of thier 'facts' were incorrect all along and the war is just a massive kaibosh. The longest threads here have been regarding the Gulf and Iraqi wars, the legalities behind them and religion. In all of these threads, unless it is supported by fact it is instantly dismissed as an unqualified opinion. To try and establish otherwise, simply to support your own position in a single thread, does not cut it. [i]Factopinguess - Stop posting factopinguess I told you guys that I was going to make up a new word, and here it is. Definition: factopinguess: \fakt-o-pin-ges\ n : 1. To falsely present as fact something that is derived from opinion or pure conjecture.[/i] http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=195070&messageID=2015896 [i]Most of your post is a factopinguess Look it up.[/i] http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11189-0.html?forumID=3&threadID=194895&messageID=2016030 [i]Facts Quote your source or drop the issue - I can skew any statistic to prove my point... [/i] http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11195-0.html?forumID=87&threadID=196435&messageID=2042776 [i]" get the facts and no demNOcrate will ever BS the american public"[/i] http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11189-0.html?forumID=3&threadID=194635&messageID=2010655 [i]DaveGibson - You are in error. See http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=3&threadID=194635&messageID=2024681 [/i] http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11189-0.html?forumID=3&threadID=194635&messageID=2024691 [i]yet your facts... your facts are created by YOU! There is no argument anymore. It is proven not to have been the case. Your speculation in fact LESS credible than what has been observed and objectively scrutinized by those that are paid to do so. [/i] http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11189-0.html?forumID=3&threadID=194635&messageID=2009807 [i]"Sorry Ernie(without the "a"now) you are still missing too many facts. A lot of it is probably due to your Limited connection but you have missed quite a few facts"[/i] http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=194370&messageID=2007907 [i]How did you form that conclusion? Do you know for sure that the average age of the Japanese auto worker is lower than their U.S. counterpart, or is that just a factopinguess? Please see my message below asking for various comparisons, and then throw in the average age of the auto worker. I'd like to know for sure. And since you made the comment, perhaps you can support it.[/i] [i]Well if you look at the facts [/i] http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=193152&messageID=1995469 [i]I asked Julian a simple question, and he replied informatively. I'm not interested in using the Bible or any interpretation of it to support my philosophy. Objective facts work much better to support my philosophy than religions.[/i] http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=190836&messageID=1971408 [b]Those were your words[/b] [i]Where the heck are you getting your "facts"?[/i] http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11195-0.html?forumID=87&threadID=190926&messageID=1970343 [i]I'm going give you a few more easy facts and I think I'm done. .....It seems no matter how many simple facts there are out there, like I said there are 3 states out there blue, red and read this" http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl03e.html.[/i] http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=188275&messageID=1944405 [i]Jaqui: Fallacious Post! Jaqui: I was taken aback by your post so I checked it out. Within ONE quick Google search, I easily found that you are spreading misinformation. It is unclear if that is your intent of course, but that is the effect.[/i] http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=198445&messageID=2069955 It goes on for years, and you have always been called to task for not presenting facts or have done so to others for thier opinoins too. "Look at real data not your dreams... " "Real Data Please? " And from yourself: [b][i]"Prove it, Tony! Prove that, if you can.[/i][/b] [b][i]If you mean Dubya, please provide an example ... I defy you to find a single example... [/i][/b] [i]"Where is this?" ... " looked briefly for confirmation of that claim, and am not convinced. Do you have some medical or actuarial science research data to share?"[/i] As for people demanding links to these facts: [i]If he DIDNT provide the link. . . . . .....you could have said: Jason, don't just make an empty assertion, but show proof of what you say is true.[/i] [i]Please site examples Provide links to your proof.[/i] [i]Can you provide some evidence for this? I'm not saying that it isn't true but I find the phrase "it's a typical British behavior" somewhat unacceptable without proof![/i] [i]Please offer PROOF!!! [/i] [i]Reference, please. Please provide links to references supporting your assertions and facts. Please post a link to the news article you quoted;[/i] You're right, upon review of the comments above, and thousands like them, I must concur, that is a forum where emotional ranting without fact is quite welcome. People don't come here for proof, they come here to play happy families and all agree to disagree, because it is all just emotional opinion that we believe in.

Absolutely
Absolutely

Oz_Media: [i]it has always been a matter of fact and certainty[/i] That's why there's an edit button. Get that shi+ off the Internet, before I revoke your license to post nonsense!

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Must have taken a while to come up with such a well thougt out reply, bery witty indeed. "Your attempt to censor discussions and opinions of others have failed Give it up" I don't try to censor anyone. UNlike yourself who seemingly can't take objective opinions without getting all pissy and whining about how unfair I am being to others. As for OPINION based discussions. I've been lurking about here for more than 7 years, which is nothing to brag about and no big deal but you seemtonot understand how these discussions normally flow. If I was to offer an opinion, which is all I used to do, ut was instantly challenged by the majority of peers as unqualified and unsupported. Opinion wsa unwelcome and only facts, with links were acceptable. A discussion such as this would instantly be recognized as a legal issue that has no legal basis. So for you to wander in and start preaching the discussion gospel is simply speaking from an unqualified perspective. As a technical website, it has always been a matter of fact and certainty, such unqualified opinions have been rightly named 'factopinguess' by a former peer, and that seems to hit the nail right on the head. This thread is FULL of factopinguesses and no real fact, which is why it is such an emotional blast of opinions with no consideration of the 'facts', which are the legality behind the issue.

santeewelding
santeewelding

No. You had it right the first time. Now, of Herat?

Absolutely
Absolutely

That alias is newer, and his use of words is more compact, like yours. Cr@p.

Absolutely
Absolutely

That's no small compliment, coming from you. Although I don't like your style, your skill is unquestionably not inconsiderable.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]Without condoning it, as I said I would not take it myself, it is legal and in some cases welcomed. As for your raising your fists and screaming at the ISP, you're wasting your breath.[/i] No, telling me I'm wasting my breath is wasting your keystrokes. If you want me to say something nice, or to criticize some company in which you aren't invested, or just stop criticizing altogether, it will co$t you.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]Like the lawyer joke There should be a law against lazy lawyers[/i] You have to read [b]all[/b] the other laws, then re-read them in-between the lines, then you have to run 10 miles in the snow, uphill both ways!

nentech
nentech

I wasn?t talking to you Oz_Media As for the joke It was not my joke It was not about you It had nothing to do with you It was not about any of the topics that were available in the article As for this discussion Your attempt to censor discussions and opinions of others have failed Give it up ?No, you're not being clever, quote the opposite. There have been far more capable peers here than you.? You are right Most of the time I was too sick or tired to put in a real effort Even when I feel all right I cant be bothered with this sort of thing I could have done better but I didn?t want to be cruel This is just a chat room Take your own advice Get out of the basement Give mum and dad a break spend some time with friends Try life you may even like it Bye Bye Don?t forget to close the door when you leave the discussion

nentech
nentech

Thanks for the info(opinion) You wrote ?I was also hoping for more of an exchange of personal opinions than a review of contracts and statutes. If lawyers "earn" all the money they collect, it's for enduring such tedium. To do that cr@p Oz better pay me like a lawyer! I also believe in Freedom of speech. I believe that includes the right of private citizens to choose for ourselves what speech we will censor in our own homes. ISP's are bit couriers, nothing else. Get the hell off my network!? Yes I wanted to read about opinions I like to hear (read) what people think I try to be impartial until I understand what they mean Like the lawyer joke There should be a law against lazy lawyers I agree with the rest Have to go it?s almost the weekend May have one more reply to do first Col

nentech
nentech

?...even in America, besides your Yosemite Sam of a leader.? Up until now your performance has been passible But when you cant get your way you throw a little tantrum Grow up ?You just posted EXACTLY what I was stating the topic was about, once again: It is 100% focused on "Internet Activists" up in arms over "Rogers tactics" 100% In short that is your problem Like I said before Get a clue ?A compound issue, whiners and corporations with legal obligations to the whiners.? Everybody has the right to whine you don?t have to listen So stop listening or in this case stop reading ?Full circle, you're one of THOSE guys who can walk in circles unil it looks like they were on track the whole time, to some people anyway.? You have gone in so many circles in this discussion you must be dizzy ?To be more exact, by reading the article, it is clear that ONE internet activist is simply posting what some other clueless customer feels is an invasion of privacy and bandwidth. Lets get to the key issue behind all this one more time, IT WAS A F***1NG TEST!!! You show me where Rogers has rolled this out to it's client BASE, not just select indiviuals and I will at least concede that part, however you can not do so as it has not happened. So the whiners are just that, ranting whiners with nothing relevant or real to say. So we have the Internet activist part summed up. One freakboy with a bone to pick and a clueless customer who didn't read her contract agreement. The other half of the issue is Rogers Communications. Rogers have done nothing out of line with thier obligations, have claimed that it was only a test (which is believable because I don't see several million people complaining and it's not on the news or anywhere else semi-relevant). So the customer was PO'd for no legitimate reason, Rogers was not at fault for breaching terms of agreement or even for starting an internet tracking procedure that is intrusive or illegal. Again, to reiterate my initial comments, it's a non-issue. Glad you finally understood at least part of what the topic was.? So you can repeat yourself nothing new there It can?t be a non-issue you keep replying ?Remember still, or have you forgotten already? If you have forgotten already, read it again. You almost had it right that time, unlike your previous clueless comments.? I always understood the topic you were the one who lost the plot ?What a tosser (there's a flame for good measure, otherwise you'll have nothing to retort).? There was more than one flame in your post You cannot even remember what you wrote in the reply when you were writing it Got the clue yet

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

However bitching about it on TR is not going to draw much focus. After reading your last posts, both you and abs., I decided to call a good friend who operates a medium sized, business class ISP out of BC, serving home businesses and corporations throughout North America with many guarantees that the common players (Rogers et al.) don't offer. No he's not Rogers but a very sought after ISP all the same and offers his connections at nearly 4X th eprice of competitors, quite succesfully for nearly 15 years now. He said he couldn't give a damn what customers thought about such a practice, they are lining up at the door. If HE needed to roll it out again(read on) he would, and the customers are still dying for a connection. He said that there are so many current and waiting subscribers that if half his client base left, he wouldn't even notice it as more would be coming on board. I was a bit shocked too, as my success has always been from addressing needs and listening to the market and my clients. So while none of them hold a monopoly on services (no I am not going there again), they still act as if they were, because for every one that leaves, two mroe are coming on board. When you look athow many custoemrs leave Telus, Shaw or ROgers each day, due to being cut off for not paying bills, being PO'd at a bad service rep, having a personal issue, acting on a friends recommendation etc. A few PO'd customers doen't even raise a flag, a efw thousand customers each day come and go, they are used to it. The only competition they focus onis price and speed, as that is the key element behind what they offer. My ISP friend also noted that he used to push a similar notification through, as it is $99 a gig for overage, and companies thought it was a great service to remind their users of overage. So I guess there's two views, the one where IT people get defnsively protective of the service they lease, and one where business owners see it as a way to control costs. Without condoning it, as I said I would not take it myself, it is legal and in some cases welcomed. As for your raising your fists and screaming at the ISP, your wasting your breath.

Absolutely
Absolutely

apotheon is right; try to tell me that if I had suggested that either my new or old ISP would notice me merely switching my own service, you would not be calling me foolish for [b]that[/b] assumption. No, communication among various subscribers, available for the consideration of ISPs who want our business enough to earn it, then switching to the best available, is [b]the[/b] way to get what we've paid for.

apotheon
apotheon

Just changing ISPs is not likely to get the point across. People publicly expressing their distaste for the way Rogers Communications handles things, [b]then[/b] changing ISPs, is more likely to make a point about what many customers won't tolerate -- not just to Rogers, but to its competitors too. This may result in some ISPs avoiding such behavior in the future, which means that in five years you may still have an ISP you can use that doesn't treat its customers that way. Anything you can do to help ISPs understand why you're abandoning one service provider for another will help get the point across to those ISPs that there's a competitive advantage to be had by treating customers well.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Okay, get the hell of mynetwork. I actually wholly agree, I personally would not stand for such an invasive approach to sending me usage data either, but instead of whining abotu my nonapplicable rights, besides flaming ROgers for doing it, I would simply change ISP's. Not exactly a headwrecker and I don't think ROgers would need ot hold a meetign to figure out how to get me back, they simply wouldn't care. If they DID go forth with sucj a tactic, others would too, it's the way such a competitive industry moves, they WANT to but wait for others to make the first move. So when all worthwhile ISP are doing it, THEN what do you do? YOU simply have to sit and wait until the government passes legislation against it, unles you wan tot fight for it yourself in a futile and expensive legal battle lasting at least several years. So what are you left with? Changing your ISP and getting on with our life. As for the topic itself, hey, one whiner cried to another whiner about something that is totally legal at this time. End of story.

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]Is OZ_Media always like this? Chad (apothon) called him a belligerent jerk Has he ever admitted he was wrong? To me it looks like he lives for the fight[/i] He functions excellently as cheerleader, when I happen to agree with him. For example, Oz_Media: [i]No, no human is THAT lost...even in America, besides your Yosemite Sam of a leader.[/i] Derr, which way did he go, George? Unfortunately, Oz sometimes disagrees with me, and in those cases his passion is, er, less endearing. Often, I'd agree with the description "belligerent jerk." Not always. nentech: [i]I would like to read your personal opinions about what I have stated Personal opinions is what I hoped to read when I found this discussion I also believe everyone has a right to their opinions I believe in Freedom of speech[/i] I was also hoping for more of an exchange of personal opinions than a review of contracts and statutes. If lawyers "earn" all the money they collect, it's for enduring such tedium. To do that cr@p Oz better pay me like a lawyer! I also believe in Freedom of speech. I believe that includes the right of private citizens to choose for ourselves what speech we will censor in our own homes. ISP's are bit couriers, nothing else. Get the hell off my network!

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

...even in America, besides your Yosemite Sam of a leader. You just posted EXACTLY what I was stating the topic was about, once again: It is 100% focused on "Internet Activists" up in arms over "Rogers tactics". A compound issue, whiners and corporations with legal obligations to the whiners. Actually, that's what YOU just said too, completely unaware of what I said before, or what you are trying to read into it. Full circle, you're one of THOSE guys who can walk in circles unil it looks like they were on track the whole time, to some people anyway. To be more exact, by reading the article, it is clear that ONE internet activist is simply posting what some other clueless customer feels is an invasion of privacy and bandwidth. Lets get to the key issue behind all this one more time, IT WAS A F***1NG TEST!!! You show me where Rogers has rolled this out to it's client BASE, not just select indiviuals and I will at least concede that part, however you can not do so as it has not happened. So the whiners are just that, ranting whiners with nothing relevant or real to say. So we have the Internet activist part summed up. One freakboy with a bone to pick and a clueless customer who didn't read her contract agreement. The other half of the issue is Rogers Communications. Rogers have done nothing out of line with thier obligations, have claimed that it was only a test (which is believable because I don't see several million people complaining and it's not on the news or anywhere else semi-relevant). So the customer was PO'd for no legitimate reason, Rogers was not at fault for breaching terms of agreement or even for starting an internet tracking procedure that is intrusive or illegal. Again, to reiterate my initial comments, it's a non-issue. Glad you finally understood at least part of what the topic was. Remember still, or have you forgotten already? If you have forgotten already, read it again. You almost had it right that time, unlike your previous clueless comments. What a tosser (there's a flame for good measure, otherwise you'll have nothing to retort).

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Fortunately, I wasn't trying to reciprocate on your 'joke' but to clarify your continually miscontrued opinion of the topic at hand. No, you're not being clever, quote the opposite. There have been far more capable peers here than you.

nentech
nentech

Mr assertion didn?t get the joke Apology? I get it Thanks your reply brightened up my day Col

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I just took another look and the topic is "Internet activists up in arms over Roger?s hijacking of Web pages" And yet you imply: [i]The subject of this discussion was [[b]The technology and ISPs customer and public relations[/b][/i] Again it ws specifically "Internet activists up in arms over Roger?s hijacking of Web pages" It's about a person's complaint of invasion from an ISP. The words, technology, public relations and ISP were never mentioned, it was very specific, not generalized. You then post two links that were never provided as part of the topic, again the topic was specifically about some nutbag internet activist who had a nutbag fan send him a freak-out comment over a legal procedure by ROgers, after accepting as much in the company's terms of sevice. So the issue of debate is, CAN teh ISP do that legally, in which case the person ranting hs no basis of an argument, or is this illegal and Rogers is treading on thin ice, which is why the Internet Activist posted the comments to begin with, to stir active debate on the topic of Rogers legal obligations to its customers.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Your comments about standing up for your rights are your opinions, just as when you compare having constitutional rights to a: "Socialist or Capitalist Regime." [i]I did not make assumptions. I state facts. [/i] It's just an opinion and not fact. Brits live in a pretty socialism focused country, they still have these same rights, as do the French, Canadians and many others (these are not REALLY socialist states but they are seen as such by most Americans), as we have already had proven on TR many times. I find many Americans feel they really are the only ones with Constitutional Freedom, you may be the exception but your comments are on the edge of the line in that respect. [b]"No Corporation or Lawyer can impede on these.[/b] Apparently there are too many individuals out there that believe they have no voice. Stand up for your rights and quit whining and being such a coward." Actually those rights pertain more toward government enforced restrictions, companies and lawyers trample on them daily. Your civil rights protect you from a lot of things, accepting a private contract DOES allow the company certain liberties as long as they are resonable and not blatatly abusive of your assumed rights. Such things as permitting personal information transfer etc. are just some of these reasonable allowances, especially when considering how they are used. the agreement allows far worse useage of your info, pretty much however they choose. As far as Civil Rights, believe me, I am adamant about my rights. But by ACCEPTING SOMEONE'S TERMS OF SERVICE, you are agreeing to THEIR terms of service. Nothing is being pushed on you, you are not forced to give up any of your Constitutional Rights, which MAINLY pertain to the government restricting you. These rights were put into place not to protect you from greedy corporations, but from teh government applying unrealistic changes to your freedoms. You may also want to reread how your rights to free speech actually apply, as with many people in the world, they feel that it entitles them to say what they want, when they want, freedom of speech guarantees nosuch thing. The US (or Canadian) government will not pass a law which infringes on your right to peaceful protest. This doesn't mean you can say what you want, when you want of course. You can't sue someone for telling you to shut up when you speak out at a private meeting, for example. Many others have been here saying that if their post was deleted by the TR staff that their right to freedom of speech was breached. In reality, there IS no guaranteed right to say what you want on a 'privately owned forum'. [i]The text of the amendment is: ? [b]Congress shall make no law[/b] respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ? [/i] This doesn't mean tha you are free to say what you want. It's just towards the government passing a law prohibiting you from supporting your choice of government, your right to peaceful protest and your right to speak out against your government without repercussion. Ths is actually amusing when you see so many people stating they MUST support the president of America as it is unpatriotic not to, when the absolute opposite is true and outlined in your and our Constituion. Not to somply disagree with you or get you going, it's just a clarification of what you are stating is fact. We've seen it dozens of times here and it's been clearly accepted by everyone here, including when people start begging for links and proof, it's just as easy as looking to your Constitutional rights, they are easy to find I'm sure. With that aside, how do your previous comments become protected by your acceptance of a private policy, that wasn't imposed on you or forced upon you by the government? As far as Rogers sending user details on bandwidth limits to your computer screen, thats not private information, it is THEIR information and is used as a measurement tool for their billing system. Without it they have no way of tracking or billin gusage. Quite legal actually, isn't it?

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

MISPOSTED OT WRONG PART OF THREAD

nentech
nentech

I wrote ?I believe whistl3r presented an opinion based on his personal beliefs? Sorry if I offended you it was not my intent ?Individuals should stand up against Corporations & Government if they feel their Constitutional and Civil Rights are being invaded. The Government also has the 'Responsibility' to uphold those Constitutional and Civil Rights without question. It's also my Civil duty to uphold my Constitutional & Civil Right. No Corporation or Lawyer can impede on these. Apparently there are too many individuals out there that believe they have no voice. Stand up for your rights and quit whining and being such a coward. If you don't stand by the Constitutional or Civil rights then you're just as bad as a Socialist or Capitalist Regime.? I agree and have stood up for my rights Some times it is very difficult I just wish there were less idiots in the world (not you) I believe some of what you say here and in other posts are human rights Col

nentech
nentech

Not really interested in discussing facts (Law, Regulations, Contracts) This discussion was not about facts other than the technology used I have made a statement in another reply This is what I posted Start Yes you could be right I will present this Any monitoring of private communications is an invasion of privacy It is impossible for this to happen without Rodger?s monitoring the communication between the customer and the source I have to go now so will check back after the weekend End It is a personal statement based on my beliefs I would like to read your personal opinions about what I have stated Personal opinions is what I hoped to read when I found this discussion I also believe everyone has a right to their opinions I believe in Freedom of speech This discussion is getting long so I would like to keep it short Just one or two posts Is OZ_Media always like this? Chad (apothon) called him a belligerent jerk Has he ever admitted he was wrong? To me it looks like he lives for the fight Col

whistl3r
whistl3r

I was quoting. These are also not 'personal beliefs'. It is fact. I did not make assumptions. I state facts. I really do not care if Paul Mah asked us for out opinion. Individuals should stand up against Corporations & Government if they feel their Constitutional and Civil Rights are being invaded. The Government also has the 'Responsibility' to uphold those Constitutional and Civil Rights without question. It's also my Civil duty to uphold my Constitutional & Civil Right. No Corporation or Lawyer can impede on these. Apparently there are too many individuals out there that believe they have no voice. Stand up for your rights and quit whining and being such a coward. If you don't stand by the Constitutional or Civil rights then you're just as bad as a Socialist or Capitalist Regime.

nentech
nentech

This was your first reply to me in this discussion I will admit I did not state it that way in my reply http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2396175 Titled ?Since I wasn't talking to you, I'll clear it up for everyone then.? Offending statements ?You have an internet connection, are you that 'kin mental that you can't use a search engine?? ?I usually take some time and effort to look into the issue myself first and then post that information in rebuttal, which you obviously do not have the capacity to handle yourself.? Looks like flames to me ?You don't even have a remote clue do you Your post is just insanity, now that's not even a flame but you canconsider it one even though the flame you suggested in teh last post was anythign but a flame. Let me get this right, anyone who doesn' twholly agree with you is 'flaming you'? Time to go outside, get some fresh air and realize that mom's basement is not the real world. NOw THAT's a flame too, getting it now? ? No the idiot writing the flames is the one flaming me Thank you for more flaming arguments Since you haven?t a clue The subject of this discussion was The technology and ISPs customer and public relations The technology is presented on the Perftech home page http://www.perftech.com/ The ISP in this case is Rogers Communications Inc http://www.rogers.com/web/

Absolutely
Absolutely

Oz_Media: [i]Call me names, flame me, call it owardice if it makes you feel beter, either way, I'm done you guys bore the sh1t out of me.[/i] Great! Wanna talk about privacy, nentech? We can re-start the conversation in peace now.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

ABS: The sky is bright blue OM: Actually, if you looked up you would see it is many colours depending on what is reflected into the sky and how light is reflected on the Earth's atmosphere. ABS: Prove it, that's just an assertion or opinion, opinions don't count unless you first prove it and provide a link to that proof. OM: http://linkfitshere.com see, I told you so, here's your proof. ABS: That's not the point, the point is that when speaking as a first person, you must also talk to others in the neighbourhood and from thier conclusions of your comments, create your own consclusion that predates your intital comment and allows others to see proof as it is properly presented. Just because yellow is not red, that doesn't mean you are correct, and THAT's what I am talking about. OM: WTF? Others: You haven't provided your opinion, just facts and flames. That's not a debate, emotional opinion must precede facts. This is a discussion about the colours of the spectrum, not what colour the sky is. Prove it. ABS: That's not what I said at all. If a monkey was to not have a bald bum and was in heat, other monkeys recognize the swelled, reddened area as an indicator that it is ready to mate. This isn't about the colour of the sky at all, how did you miss the monkey's bum topic? Perhaps you can see why I don't see any future in this topic anymore. If someone else wants to take a dead thread, misconstrue the focus and the content and then try to drag it out by passing blame to someone for killing it, have fun. Call me names, flame me, call it owardice if it makes you feel beter, either way, I'm done you guys bore the sh1t out of me. If you actually feel there is a conclusion to be reached, beyond the fact that Rogers can pretty much can do as it pleases in this case when you accept the contract, hace a nice chat. Apparently someone still thinks there's something to be gained here,

Absolutely
Absolutely

[i]nentech quoting Oz_Media: "The whole issue of debate through this forum was my INABILITY to provide proof for my opinions. Get with the program." nentech: That is a generalisation You have not provided anything to support this statement It is also a flame[/i] I asked Oz_Media, probably one too many times, for documentation/proof/evidence. I don't know why this is such a sensitive subject to him, but I have to admit I asked him to provide a lot of that clutter, which really is not the point. This is: http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2388869

Absolutely
Absolutely

Oz_Media: "Every comment I posted here was contested. I think it was you who was on my case about offering proof of my comments and not just assertions, I don't really care or remember now, I prefer to focus on things worth my time." That's right, and that was the point of my post. The point in your current exchanges with nentech is that you've been replying to him as if he is this thread, not an individual participant in it, as you are, and as each of us has addressed you -- with respect you have not shown in return, to all or most of us, at least once.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Yes, THAT's a flame too. Every comment I posted here was contested. I think it was you who was on my case about offering proof of my comments and not just assertions, I don't really care or remember now, I prefer to focus on things worth my time. When I posted links to prove my comments, I was then told I should have doe it from teh beginning. Then some clown who doesn't know what's going on or simply cannot keep up, is trying to tell me all I do is post facts and not opinions. Since when were opinions favoured over facts on TR? Since when were 'opinions' even CONSIDERED on TR. Usually anythign unsupported is seen as "factopinguess", remember that one? So to the both of you, and with all sincerity, f'k you both and have a nice day. What a waste of time it is "talking with Americans". I really wish you guys got that show in the US. It would be so funny to read your overly defensive freaking out the next day.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Your post is just insanity, now that's not even a flame but you canconsider it one even though the flame you suggested in teh last post was anythign but a flame. Let me get this right, anyone who doesn' twholly agree with you is 'flaming you'? Time to go outside, get some fresh air and realize that mom's basement is not the real world. NOw THAT's a flame too, getting it now? YOu want me to provide proof of what this topic is about? Read the f'kin thing yourself! Man you are simply a completely lost cause, find something creatove to do, the rest of your BS isn't worth the time to read or even the time you put into the eystrokes, I don't know whay you even bothered it's 100% clueless tripe. And yes, THAT is a flame too. You'll learn in time I guess, it's just sad that I have to waste my time pointing it out to you.(not that you'll get it anyway)

nentech
nentech

The last line of your post http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2398120 ?This is a legal topic, right from the very first post of invasive tactics by Rogers? You have not provided anything to support this statement ?The whole issue of debate through this forum was my INABILITY to provide proof for my opinions. Get with the program.? That is a generalisation You have not provided anything to support this statement It is also a flame ?Didn't even bother to read the rest, it's a waste of time and just a string of words with no relevance or reason for further interest, in short, complete BS. You are making a straw man argument, obviously with no interest in the topic at hand. You're even speaking for others now, a little pep rally? If that's your only hope, here's a good site for you.? Flame flame flame I have a lot of interest in the subject but find it hard to locate in this discussion It is lost in the flame wars that you were instrumental in creating I would have liked to read about opinions of how Rodgers public relations handled this I would have liked to read about how other persons who posted to this discussion would have reacted if there ISP did the same It became to hard to find Thankyou for making it so ?this is just boring now, not challenging and there's nothing left to dicuss? Why too much of a coward too answer my questions ?Anyone who has known me here long enough knows very well I don't run from debate and I can take it just as well as I dish it out. In this case it's just waste of time, has no benefit from further debate or even enough to debate to hold interest.? That is a generalisation You have not provided anything to support this statement I do not remember talking you to before What you mean is I have no interest in an argument I cannot win You wasted my time with your irrelevant replies You flamed me the first time you posted me a reply You are a hypocrite http://tinyurl.com/6wbv

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

"You have presented Rodgers Contract, Terms & Conditions, Regulations and the Law As an argument without first presenting your opinion of the subject" The whole issue of debate through this forum was my INABILITY to provide proof for my opinions. Get with the program. Didn't even bother to read the rest, it's a waste of time and just a string of words with no relevance or reason for further interest, in short, complete BS. You are making a straw man argument, obviously with no interest in the topic at hand. You're even speaking for others now, a little pep rally? If that's your only hope, here's a good site for you. http://tinyurl.com/ytb2z this is just boring now, not challenging and there's nothing left to dicuss. You can join in and call it cowardice, giving it but not taking it etc. whatever helps you sleep at night. Anyone who has known me here long enough knows very well I don't run from debate and I can take it just as well as I dish it out. In this case it's just waste of time, has no benefit from further debate or even enough to debate to hold interest. you're just wasting my time now, go make yourself a tinfoil trophy or flame me in a reply to make yourself feel better and get over it already. In short: http://piv.pivpiv.dk/

nentech
nentech

Your apology is not accepted You have presented Rodgers Contract, Terms & Conditions, Regulations and the Law As an argument without first presenting your opinion of the subject I am talking about a moral opinion not a legal opinion You have made assumptions about the motives of the people posting in this discussion So as not to confuse you whistl3r and my posts http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2395850 http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=247599&messageID=2396119 You made assumptions You made the wrong assumption I believe whistl3r presented an opinion based on his personal beliefs I do not believe it was a legal opinion I know I presented personal opinion based on my beliefs and not a legal opinion You posted an incorrect reply to us based on an incorrect assumption When you were wrong to make an assumption in the first place You should have asked us to clarify our statements before making your own statement You have done this more than once in this discussion Before you start Paul Mah asked us for our opinions He did not ask us for an opinion of Rodgers Contract, Terms & Conditions, Regulations and the Law These tactics are used to get an emotional response You have presented them with an aggressive tone Explain why you think this is acceptable behaviour

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

It was directed at Whistl3r's last unqualified character assertions. Which were just more half baked ranting aimed at generalizing my character. You've been around long enough to know there's more to me than that, it's not so cut and dry. As for "I don't recall you specifically supporting any particular intrusions." I haven't, you are right. But instead of ranting about how my personal rights ware being trampled on, I understand that agreeing to a contract usually entitles the company to many liberties and removes some of my own, whether I agree with them or not, it's a 'reasonable' term of service. As has been stated by another here, such liberties are not enforceable and that Constitutional Rights should protect oneself against such contracts and raise legal issue in these cases. Even though he was on about illegal search & siezure, which isn't the correct law (it falls under privacy assurance), it still doesn't apply in such a case as someone agreeing to a reasonable contract. Sure you can TRY to take them to court, you'll also need to try to find a lwyer dumb enough to pursue such a case,knowing it is an expensive dead-end that will only result in a loss on his representation record. As you probably know already, I have a family member who ran thier legal team, I've seen what sticks and what is simply laughed at, such a case would simply be laughed at and not taken seriously by anyone involved, including a judge if it ever made it through initial discovery. Glad you managed to catch up and understand my point of view, whether you agree or not. As far as vehemently enforcing my point, this discussion would have been fewer than 100 posts had Damin not poked and trolled for more and started flaming me, but that's what he does, has done it before and I just won't stand for such blatantly ignorant and unqualified assertions being thrown against my character or comments. I have contested several comments, which were obviously half-cocked ranting originatng from emotion and not reality, fact or even reason. If you can't stomache that, take some Tums.

Absolutely
Absolutely

Oz_Media: [i]I actually support the Canadian Constitution fully in their protection of the Canadian citizen, moreso that the Canadian business.[/i] Good. Oz_Media: [i]As for CRIA (our RIAA) and the MPAA, I have worked in the music industry since the late 80's. Having operated offices in the US and Canada I've have and many dealings with these so called 'organizations'. My work has been a contradiction of everything THEY and the big 4 capitalize on, by my supporting independant bands/musicians and finding them fair development contracts outside of North America, where they have a chance at a fair career. In short, I do not share a similar mindset at all, no matter how you take my comments here.[/i] Now that you mention it, I don't recall you specifically [b]supporting[/b] any particular intrusions ... Oz_Media: [i]Canada's Constitution is the key reason that we are able to share P2P content with little repercussion. A Suprene Court Justice has already denied RIAA's attepmts to sue Canadian downloaders several times. The ISP's will not divulge customer information to the RIAA for the purpose of tracking and fining users, as they are protected by Canada's Constitution. While the RIAA has a right [b]to persue breaches of the licence[/b] through Canadian legal channels, Canada's Constitution [b]will not allow release of such information to a third party[/b] for that purpose. The ISP faces a far greater fines, loss of licencing by breaching the Constitution ...[/i] Good. Oz_Media: [i]P2P sharing, while still walking a fine line, is seen as practically unpunishable in Canada in too many ways to prosecute through CRIA either, though they do try. Maybe you just misunderstood my stand and generalized character based on a specific argument.[/i] I know that was all addressed to apotheon directly, but this is an open forum, and it seems I also misunderstood your stand in a similar manner; in my case, I can say with absolute certainty, that my perception was based on your general vehemence, more than on any specific argument, although your repetition of the EULA, and the implication that it is the [b]only[/b] fact you consider, also added to that impression. Still, much more than any [b]specific argument[/b] you advanced, it was the fact that you began, and remained, so insistent that there is absolutely nothing worth discussing and that everybody who disagrees with you is stupid or dishonest that gave me a negative impression of you.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I'be sat in on many cases between Rogers Communications and customers/companies/the CRTC and others. I actually support the Canadian Constitution fully in their protection of the Canadian citizen, moreso that the Canadian business. As for CRIA (our RIAA) and the MPAA, I have worked in the music industry since the late 80's. Having operated offices in the US and Canada I've have and many dealings with these so called 'organizations'. My work has been a contradiction of everything THEY and the big 4 capitalize on, by my supporting independant bands/musicians and finding them fair development contracts outside of North America, where they have a chance at a fair career. In short, I do not share a similar mindset at all, no matter how you take my comments here. Canada's Constitution is the key reason that we are able to share P2P content with little repercussion. A Suprene Court Justice has already denied RIAA's attepmts to sue Canadian downloaders several times. The ISP's will not devouge customer information to the RIAA for the purpose of tracking and fining users, as they are protected by Canada's Cinstition. While the RIAA has a right to persue breaches of the licence through Canadian legal channels, Canada's Constitution will not allow release of such information to a third party for that purpose. The ISP faces a far greater fines, loss of licencing by breaching the Constitution than it does by a possible fine for permitting sharing on thier network, which would never stand anyway. P2P sharing, while still walking a fine line, is seen as practically unpunishable in Canada in too many ways to prosecute through CRIA either, though they do try. Maybe you just misunderstood my stand and generalized character based on a specific argument.

apotheon
apotheon

"[i]Our 'Constitutional Right' is implied regardless of how you look at it.[/i]" I'm a former* resident of Minnesota. I know Minnesota [b]feels[/b] like being in Canada, but last I checked it still hasn't been annexed. The matter of Rogers Communications' behavior toward its customers is not subject to US Constitutional provisions, by law, and I suspect that's where you're getting the concept of "Constitutional rights" in this case. Canada may provide protection of similar rights to its citizens, and it's true that real rights don't require enumeration or implication in a Constitution to exist, but I rather suspect you are trying to apply the terms of the US Constitution itself to a situation that is specific to Canada. *: Thankfully, only [b]former[/b]. What a pit. edit: It appears, from another post, that you may in fact be aware this is about Canada, as you cite the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Your reference to "our" Constitutional rights here, however, and the use of the term "Constitution" in particular, is confusing in this context. Please clarify statements like these.

whistl3r
whistl3r

"'nentech, sorry to throw all this at you but I have been called to task too many times here by the regular 'clowns without a clue' and no ability to research the issue themselves, therefore I will simply use this reply to prove them all wrong as well. It's not a direct poke at you, your comments have been very reasonable and noncombative. When the contract is accepted you have waived such rights to privacy. You can read it yourself:" I would have to believe the fool be individuals as yourself. 'clowns without a clue' apparently need our 'Constitutional Rights' spelled out in whole. Our 'Constitutional Right' is implied regardless of how you look at it. The comments you made also in the TOS perfectly describe how unconstitutional Lawyers exploit the system, if it doesn't explicitly state 'How' then it's 'Ok' to impede on the Constitutional Rights. No Company or Government 'Reserve' any right to strip us from these such 'Constitutional Rights' regardless of how you look at it.... it's the whole basis of creation. It's un-Professionals as yourself whom spit on, exploit and blatantly mock the Constitution and force 'Your idealogical views' upon the American Culture. The same goes for the MPAA/RIAA and other unconstitutional Foundations in America. You sir are incorrect.

Absolutely
Absolutely

Oz_Media: [i]There's the old saying If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.[/i] Rogers might take the same attitude with its customers. If so, they are likely to learn that the excessive heat output of ovens is tolerated only in exchange for the valuable service they provides to their users.

nentech
nentech

Two wrongs don?t make a right You have used that argument as well I can stand the heat can you? Guess you can dish it out but cant take it It was not assertion this was cowardice You chose to hide behind the law You have acted just like the legal weasels I have seen in court Your attitude sucks You have replied to me elsewhere But if you are too much of a coward to justify your actions don?t reply Saying this discussion is dead is just another excuse You are still posting your reply?s

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Now I don't mean to be cold and I understand you're not feeling well. I just got over one of those lingering flu bugs myself. This is an internet discussion forum, as far as these off topic threads go, they are just a chat room. As with all links and slecteable material on the Internet, you are not forced to read or reply to content you don't agree with or which may be offensive to you. My focus is not 'might is right' at all. You seem to be confusing assertion with strength. If you are of a more passive mindset, then you are also free to use your mouse and choose not to read my replies. I don't need to explain my attitude to you, if you don't care for my approach, don't read my approach. As for your well considered reply after getting better, perhaps you're better off expending that energy in another forum here. This one is dead and beyond rigor now.

nentech
nentech

Not feeling well Some tactics you have used Might is right That is an inflammatory argument You have presented it aggressively You have taken the position of authority, which you know will provoke an emotional response You have done this more than once in this discussion I ask you to justify the use of those tactics

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

From your cooling off period (this is an internet forum, don't let it get to you!) I will be happy to read your well considered reply...well I'll read it anyway. As for my "Tactics" I have none, perhaps you find my personality abrasive, many do but that's the edge that got me to where I am today. Asfor your reading the terms, I have pointed out WHY I didn't think you read them, or at least that you didn't understand them. If you had read it, I think you woul dsee how clearly it states thier usage of bandwidth, the users personal information, etc. Statements issued by Rogers? Having a member of their legal team in my family, I have heard it all too (first hand battled out in a courtroom), most of it is pure BS that a politician would be proud of, but the bottom line is the terms are the terms, by agreeing to them you accept the restrictions on your own usage and liberties you afford them as a provider. There's not much to 'go over' or 'consider', it's pretty cut and dry, black and white. As are most others I've read. I would state the futility of pursuing it further, but you seem to want to anyway. I guess it's like your dislike of my tactics, too bad, huh? As for this being a courtroom, it is. It is also a night club, venting area, charity forum, technical suport forum and several other faces. The reason this turned into a courtroom is because we are discussing legalities behind a service providers contract and users rights. This is a legal topic, right from the very first post of invasive tactics by Rogers.

nentech
nentech

You wrote to me I have decided to wait until I have had some time to think about what you wrote( to cool down) So I reserve to the right to edit this post later on I will post a reply to your other reply and will tell you when I have edited this one Are you deliberately trying to pi** me off I have state my dislike of the tactic you have used But you decided to use it against me anyway I have already stated that I have read Rodgers terms and conditions I also read more than that I read many statements issued by Rodgers as well I do not like the tactics you are using This is not a courtroom I will be back

apotheon
apotheon

"[i]Nobody has offered any proof to support thier assertions.[/i]" I guess you must have [b]completely missed[/b] my explanation about the difference between an [b]original[/b] positive assertion and an explication of or agreement with a positive assertion. See above re: that distinction, and how it applies to this discussion in general. "[i]Damin is bitching about how it is theft of bandwidth, according to your comments, it is therefor ehis burden of proof if he is to make an assertion.[/i]" I don't recall saying "None of the positive assertions here are original." What I remember saying is "Most of the positive assertions here are not original." If you grasp the difference between original positive assertions and explications of or agreements with others' positive assertions, perhaps you can grasp how this affects my previous statements -- such as the fact that it in no way supports or undermines Damin's comments about bandwidth usage in particular. "[i]Perhaps I should have posted proof here, but this is a public contract if you don't believe me, read the damn thing yourself before flaming me for a few weeks and working overtime to try and downplay my comments as absurd, which were proven quite accurate actually.[/i]" I think you must have some mistaken impression that I was trying to take you to task for disagreeing with Damin on the subject of the legality of bandwidth usage by the ISP. Why do you think so? Are you jumping to conclusions because you misunderstood the point of my previous post? Is it because you prefer to attack a straw man rather than actually addressing what I have to say? Is it some other reason? "[i]Now that the contract has been posted here, I think you can clearly see that either nentech lied and did NOT read the contract which clearly states they have no such obligation, or nentech simply didn't understand the contract to begin with.[/i]" He said Rogers could end up in court -- not that the terms of service didn't try to allow for the legality of this behavior. I'm not sure you're aware of this fact (though I'm also not sure how you could have missed it), but terms of use, contracts, and license agreements are all subject to review by courts if someone can make a convincing case for certain terms of these documents being unenforceable and/or invalid under the law. It seems nentech obliquely expressed the opinion that the specifics of Rogers Communications' general terms of use are not legally valid as a defense of this behavior. I don't know that I agree with that estimation, but that's not the point -- the point is that it's entirely possible that nentech is both honest and capable of understanding the terms of that CYA document, which would mean that you didn't understand his point, don't know much about how the law actually works, or decided to attack nentech with spurious claims about his character and intelligence rather than addressing his points. "[i]This makes no sense at all and is just 100% trolling.[/i]" This is the statement that makes me question whether you even know about or understand the fact that contracts are often declared invalid after judicial review because of conflicts with the law, since it was in response to Damin saying "It is amazing How the courts keep throwing out misleading contracts". That statement makes perfect sense to me. What part of it confuses you? "[i]Again another attack, and if he had actually read the contract himself would soon see that my comments were dead on accurate as to the fact that ROgers can do as they choose when you lease thier lines. WHich he claims was 'very little understanding of it' I think you can see that was just again, trolling and flaming without a cause or anything to support his claims that I as wrong.[/i]" Again, Damin was just pointing out that contracts are often found void or unenforceable when they conflict with law and legal precedent. Your response was to say that the contract in question allows Rogers Communications to do what it likes in this case. You have [b]utterly failed[/b] to address Damin's point here, and instead seem to be sticking your fingers in your hears and chanting "la la la la la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la", et cetera. Stating that the terms of a contract allow for Rogers to behave in a certain manner [b]in now way whatsoever[/b] means that the contract will hold up in court if a customer decides to test it. One more time, in case it isn't clear -- I do not necessarily agree with the estimation of others on the subject of whether this contract would hold up in court, but I [b]do[/b] know that [b]sometimes, contractual terms are found legally invalid or unenforceable[/b]. Thus, you may have an opinion on whether these terms are legally valid or enforceable, but simply ignoring the question of legality beyond the contract itself by stating that the contractual terms allow for it is not going to get you very far in terms of the logical strength of your argument. "[i]It then escalated with him commenting onevery comment I made, simply disagreeing and calling me names,or as is called on the internet 'TROLLING'.[/i]" Yes. I do recall mentioning, at one point, that he was flailing about like someone having a bad LSD trip. "[i]When called to task himself, NOTHING< just moreflames and name calling/trolling,[/i]" Again . . . I do recall mentioning, at one point, that he was flailing about like someone having a bad LSD trip. Do you think I'm defending that? If so -- why? "[i]So while I respect your decency in approach, it is NOT my obligation to post initial links.[/i]" See above, re: original positive assertions. It was some while into the discussion before there were many original positive assertions made by anyone disagreeing with you. You, meanwhile, were making [b]original[/b] positive assertions from your very first post in this discussion. How do you account for that in your position that you have no logical responsibility to back up your own statements? "[i]It is public information[/i]" I'm sorry -- that's no defense for failing to bring evidence [b]into the context of the argument[/b]. "[i]I have already qualified my experience in teh field and knowldge of the general contract applications.[/i]" "Argument from authority" is a well-known logical fallacy, though the form of argument from authority wherein one presents oneself as a relative authority is perhaps not as widely recognized as the form wherein one refers to some outside authority. In any case, my point is that stating your experience (assuming we believe you -- which I do, but other participants may not) is irrelevant to what you have logically proven and supported with evidence. "[i]I also stated a need for specifics, while everyone was just blurting out anti-Rogers spew without a clue.[/i]" No, [b]not[/b] everyone. Perhaps this is a big part of your problem: because you disagreed vehemently with one or two people, you may have formed a foregone conclusion about any and all expressed opinions and arguments that disagree with you, associating them with those of people who are prone to "spew without a clue" unfairly. Thus, such problems as confirmation bias and guilt by specious association interfere with your ability to treat arguments from different people as discrete and judge them on their own merits. . . . or maybe that's not the problem. If not, though, I wonder what your problem could be instead. I don't believe you're actually malicious, after all. "[i]Seeing as I am teh ONLY one here who supported ANY of his comments, and did so immediately when asked to.[/i]" Incorrect. 1. Some of your "support" was not immediate. 2. You're not the only person to support his/her statements here. Some support took the form of informal logical proofs based on facts already in evidence, however, so if you expect all "support" to consist of outside links, you may not have recognized that fact. "[i]this is not a problem of my misunderstanding, lack of legal comprehansion or anything else except that Damin was a troll and did a piss poor job of it[/i]" Damin is not the only person in this discussion other than you, and it would be nice if you did not associate your specific beef with Damin with the rest of our arguments.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Nobody has offered any proof to support thier assertions. Damin is bitching about how it is theft of bandwidth, according to your comments, it is therefor ehis burden of proof if he is to make an assertion. Prove it then, but replied with no links just more speculation, as has always been the case with him. [i]I said "Yeah , right PErhaps you can explain this theft of bandwidth then. First of all you would need to understand how Rogers serves their bandwidth to subscribers and what obligations they have to do so, I'd assume that once you had you would see it otherwise.[/i] Which is 100% true, such an assertion can only e made if you understand the contractual obligations. [i]They have no promise for bandwidth, just a maximum available bandwidth. They DO have a monthly limit imposed, but I have yet to see anyone get more than a mention of being over the 50 gigs allotted, never seen someoone actiually charged for overage."[/i] Perhaps I should have posted proof here, but this is a public contract if you don't believe me, read the damn thing yourself before flaming me for a few weeks and working overtime to try and downplay my comments as absurd, which were proven quite accurate actually. To this, absolutely went off with another speculative argunment, without cheching teh contract either. THis one is funny, nentech claimed ot have read the Rogers contract (hooray!) but then said: [i]If they want to use this thing They had better notify their customers first or they could end up in court They would need to show their customers agreement to the change[/i] Now that the contract has been posted here, I think you can clearly see that [b]either nentech lied and did NOT read[/b] the contract which clearly states they have no such obligation, [b]or nentech simply didn't understand the contract to begin with.[/b] This is also when damin went over the line by saying: [i]It is amazing How the courts keep throwing out misleading contracts Yes I have also noticed your inability to get what people are trying to tell you I have also noticed that you need to have it explained in simple terms [/i] This makes no sense at all and is just 100% trolling. NOTE: Damin is the troll here, who started to post direct attacks on my comments andwith no support to his arguments, even when asked to. Damin then said: [i]No I am not interested in discussing contract law It gets boring and most people do not understand it (Must be why we have so many honest lawyers) Your posts show some knowledge of the law with very little understanding of it Or intent, acceptance, and obligation[/i] Again another attack, and if he had actually read the contract himself would soon see that my comments were dead on accurate as to the fact that ROgers can do as they choose when you lease thier lines. WHich he claims was "very little understanding of it" I think you can see that was just again, trolling and flaming without a cause or anything to support his claims that I as wrong. It then escalated with him commenting onevery comment I made, simply disagreeing and calling me names,or as is called on the internet "TROLLING". I commented on Canadian deregulation laws, was called a retards, so I posted likes to the government website proving what i said. While completely igniring that proof, Damin just kept flaming me and calling me a troll. When called to task himself, NOTHING< just moreflames and name calling/trolling, Whenit finally came down to my being called a liar and asked to prove Rogers contract, I did so. I posted specifics, links and a PDF of the entire contract. This is Damin's game, played it before, thinks he's clever but is actually quite slow to the punch an dkeeps tripping over his own comments as they don't hold water and can never be supported with proof. So while I respect your decency in approach, it is NOT my obligation to post initial links. It is public information, I have already qualified my experience in teh field and knowldge of the general contract applications. I also stated a need for specifics, while everyone was just blurting out anti-Rogers spew without a clue. Seeing as I am teh ONLY one here who supported ANY of his comments, and did so immediately when asked to. I think that it is clear, this is not a problem of my misunderstanding, lack of legal comprehansion or anything else except that Damin was a troll and did a piss poor job of it, as usual. The last time was quite a circus too, until he finally fell on his face too many times to stand up again, as is the case here to. Have a good one and, until the next bout of trench warfare, live long and prosper. Out

apotheon
apotheon

When you make an original positive assertion, it's your responsibility to back it up. Most of the positive assertions here are [b]not[/b] original. They are, in fact, merely support for the positive assertion that was gleaned from the article itself. The article provides not just links but images as well. That means that the next major positive assertion in need of evidence was yours. Thanks for providing links. Most of the rest of the discussion here (and the stuff I tend to agree with) is not a positive assertion at all. It's a statement of opinion or, in some cases, a negative assertion (logical refutations). The statements of opinion in many cases (notably Absolutely, for instance) is merely that complaining about Rogers Communications and jumping ship to other providers (or avoiding RC in the first place, if you're not already a customer) is a good idea, because it makes the point that this kind of experimentation with intrusiveness is not welcome. Market forces work because people convey information about what is and is not acceptable business practice to vendors and service providers, through direct communication, public complaints, and application of buying power. There are some people here who have said some things in opposition to what you've said that are kind of hair-brained. They're not everyone, though, and you seem bound and determined to paint everyone that dislikes Rogers' policy with the same brush. Not only that, but you do it with a piss-poor attitude. . . . and you've directed some of that at me. That's why you earn my special attention, but the idjits making indefensible statements on the other side of the debate do not (for the most part). Note that in one case I did take the time to "correct" someone who disagreed rather strenuously with you. Please stop acting like Absolutely, I, and others who have been reasonable here are the collective Antichrist.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You still want to take me to task without first proving anything to contradict my comments, yet you still expect me to support mine. Sounds a little one sided and offensive to me. Others have done that here too, and contrary to your comment, I am still the ONLY PERSON HERE WHO HAS PROVIDED LINKS TO SUPPORT MY POSTS. As for generalizations of Rogers service contracts. You have an internet connection, are you that 'kin mental that you can't use a search engine? When people post comments that I don't feel are correct, instead of simply asking them to prove thier comments, I usually take some time and effort to look into the issue myself first and then post that information in rebuttal, which you obviously do not have the capacity to handle yourself. As for Rogers' obligations, I have already posted links to the CRTC website, if you couldn't find it yourself. The obligations are part of the CRTC's regulations, not Rogers. As for the person SIGNING the contract and perhaps overlooking and accepting such an offer, you know very well that these offers and specials/promotions change on an almost monthly basis. I haven't said that such a service was used either, just that without such information (which is COMMONLY the case behind such issues)nobody here can condemn Rogers without fist knowing what the complaintant had agreed to. It's pure speculation and without that knowledge, everyone is just ranting half cocked. As far as the maximum bandwidth obligations, that's the same for ALL unlimited connection providers in North America, they all run on the same basic principals. This search will give you an idea of how these promotios vary, by time, bundle etc. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=rogers+internet+service+contract&spell=1 Rogers bandwidth does NOT guarantee your speed or bandwidth, so there's no obligation to serve your pages without added information, as many have tried to suggest. "Modem set-up [b] of up to 7.0 Mbps[/b] download and 512 Kbps upload." No guaranteed speed or bandwidth is suggested or implied. Their obligations stop with you being able to CONNECT to the internet, nothing more. Read their site, even if you don't like the content you find, they are not responsible for it. Therefore if you are only receiving 5mbs or less because they are serving you added info on the pages, tough sh1t for you. From Rogers' "Terms of Service" https://your.rogers.com/about/legaldisclaimer/consumerEng_legal.asp?shopperID=95S23QTAF4U38JQQFTDEJDVXNAXS1457 Did you know about the highlighted part? [i] [b]Your account information may, from time to time, be disclosed to other members of the Rogers Communications Inc. organization and to our agents and authorized dealers in order to service your account[/b], respond to your questions and promote additional products and services offered by members of the Rogers organization that may interest you. If you do not wish to receive offers or information from related Rogers entities, please contact Rogers at the address set out below.[/i] So I guess you can now see that they have a right to include you in such service enhancements, Rogers product offers etc. Without your prior consent, UNLESS YOU OPT OUT. MORE: [i]Unless otherwise specified in the Service Agreement, [b]we may change, at any time, any charges, features, content, programming, structure or any other aspects of the Services,[/b][/i] in short, they can serve you whatever the hell they choose to and if you don't like it, cancel. MORE: [i]From time to time, we may establish policies, rules and limits (together, the ?Policies?) concerning use of the Services, Equipment and any products, content, applications or services used in conjunction with the Services or Equipment. Your use of the Services is subject to these Policies. We will provide you with notice of the Policies and of changes to the Policies. Our Acceptable Use Policy, available at rogers.com/terms, is incorporated into these Terms by reference. In addition, when using certain Yahoo! services, you may be subject to additional terms (which may be posted from time to time) applicable to such Services and which are incorporated by reference into these Terms.[/i] I think you may see by now that they have the right to change, alter and serve you as they choose, if at anytime you don't like it, you can leave, however they have the right to still charge you an early disconnection penalty if you leave while under contract. As the governing body allows all provders to do so also. Read the content area of the agreement (section 15),they are also entitled to use anything you publicly transmit on thier service, photos, audio video etc., royalty free as they choose to (just as any other provider can too). They can legally censor your transmissions: [i]We reserve the right to move, remove or refuse to post any content, information or materials, in whole or in part, that we decide are unacceptable, undesirable or in violation of the Service Agreement.[/i] Some more: [i]Neither Rogers nor Yahoo! or their affiliates, licensors, suppliers and agents (and their respective employees, officers, directors and representatives) are responsible or liable to you for any content, applications or services provided to you or accessible by you through the Services,[/i] Th clincher:[i]To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law: ? neither Rogers nor Yahoo! guarantees or warrants the performance, availability, coverage, uninterrupted use, security, pricing or operation of the Services, the Equipment or any products, content, applications, services, facilities, connections or networks used or provided by us or third parties (collectively, the ?Offering?); ? you bear the entire risk as to the use, availability, reliability, timeliness, quality, security and performance of the Offering connections or networks; and ? neither Rogers nor Yahoo! makes any express or implied representations, warranties or conditions, including warranties of title or non-infringement, or implied warranties of merchantable quality or fitness for a particular purpose, with regard to the Offering.[/i] And lastly[i]The Service Agreement, as amended from time to time, constitutes the entire agreement between you and Rogers for the Services and supersedes all prior agreements, written or oral, with respect to the same subject matter.[/i] So by now, I am sure that you and all othere here are quite aware that your ISP's service contracts pretty much waive your right to recive anything from them except protection of your personal information. If only more people took time to read and look into these issues befor erunning off at the mouth with no idea what they are complaining about or what legal rights the provider has. Some guys here even feel that their bandwidth belongs to them and any extra transmissions are an infringement on that contract, which is clearly completely blind foolishness. People here get so lazy they simply flame and contest opinions without even trying to support thier own, at least I can prove my comments toward Rogers freedoms and obligations. Have a nice day, and next time do your homework yourself.

Editor's Picks