An article by Kevin Parkinson on GlobalResearch.ca talks about a few issues with our incumbent monopolist phone and broadcast undertaking companies (wired and wireless). I am glad that these issues are increasingly being covered by people on all sides of the political spectrum(s), recognizing the importance of this infrastructure to our future economy as well as society as a whole.


Tinfoil hat?
Hmm... This seems a touch ... paranoid?
There is probably an ounce of truth that derives from Bell et al's throttling of particular applications, but I doubt that anyone, Bell included, would like the Internet to look like AOL. There's a comment on the article from TELUS that suggests an overreaction. Many other comments also suggest the same.
Canadians do need to wake up and understand that companies like Bell are causing serious problems. That said, paranoid, vigorous hand-waving is not the answer.
paranoid, vigorous hand-waving
"paranoid, vigorous hand-waving" -- sounds like politics to me. Whether it is the left talking about big corporations or economic globalization, or the right talking about big governments -- or social conservatives talking about gay marriage or abortion. All of these involve "paranoid, vigorous hand-waving".
Have you not been sent one of those email-forwards about the green tax shift (The Liberal or Green Party version -- more paranoia about the Liberal one given they may form government) that claims that everyones taxes will go up? That's pretty much entirely "paranoid, vigorous hand-waving" given the Auditor General will be verifying that any such plan is revenue neutral, and yet many Canadians will be making their decisions entirely based on this "paranoid, vigorous hand-waving".
I'm just very happy that some of this *politics* is finally happening around telecommunications, so that it isn't just a few techies that are taking notice of what is happening in this sector.
Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) consultant.
Key word: paranoid
Vigorous hand-waving (like yours) is appreciated. The article in question is completely paranoid and without citation. The statements are wild enough that I would need secondary references or supporting evidence before I accepted the claims as valid. The article has neither.