Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Round One, Fight!

Quoth CBC News: Bell's throttling practices to continue, as CRTC turns down the request for interim relief, since the smaller ISPs hadn't proved irreparable harm to their business would occur.

Giving the actual CRTC decision a read, I can't strictly fault the CRTC's logic. Interim relief is basically a question of saying, "we can't wait for you to fully consider this, we need this stopped now or else something terrible will happen", and the burden of proof to justify it is accordingly high. With the CRTC not thinking that burden had been met, this means that the issue (which the decision admits is a "serious" issue) gets to be considered at length. Professor Geist says more or less the same thing here.

I really only wish the CBC article had made it clear that this isn't a final decision, because, if you read the comments (I know, it's pointless), the angry reactions are already starting, and the article itself isn't actually clear on the meaning of interim relief, and the relevant standards of proof and evidence, leaving far too much room for uninformed frothing anger in comments both to the CRTC and Geist articles.

The commenters arguing that the CRTC's duty to the public interest should override are, for example, neglecting that this isn't the point at which the public interest is considered (in fact, the decision specifically denies public interest as a valid rationale at this stage).

This isn't over, in short. So relax.


( Walk among 5 shadows — Cast a shadow )
May. 14th, 2008 07:52 pm (UTC)
What? There should be reasonably informed coverage of legal affairs? Surely you jest!
May. 14th, 2008 08:01 pm (UTC)
Reasonably informed would involve explanation. I think that "pointing out that the decision we're reporting isn't final" isn't so much reasonably informed as a minimum standard of competence.

Sheesh. I generally like the CBC, at that, but somebody on their reporting staff had a brain fart today.
May. 14th, 2008 08:11 pm (UTC)
Mweh. I've never seen a news article (never mind tv coverage!) that even comes close to informed coverage of a judicial decision. This instance is nothing special.
May. 14th, 2008 08:15 pm (UTC)
Mmm, fair enough - though again, I wasn't expecting reasonably informed as much as I was expecting them to avoid blatantly misstating the facts of the matter.

All in all, I guess I just needed to get indignant about something, since the decision itself was a relative nonevent given the headline. :D
May. 15th, 2008 02:40 am (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, I am currently being screwed by Bell so I pay close attention.
( Walk among 5 shadows — Cast a shadow )