Really Scary

Folks, we need to send a message to companies like Bell Canada and Telus that any such plans will be severely criticized. This plan is quite scary.



  1. RBerman said,

    November 12, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    Can’t find a thing on this elsewhere on the internet, even though it’s from July. Any reputable references, rather than just some guy’s blog?

  2. thomasgoodwin said,

    November 12, 2008 at 10:43 pm

    I subscribe to Bell and Telus, but I’ve not heard a thing about this.

  3. jared said,

    November 13, 2008 at 12:23 am

    More like really far-fetched.

  4. Stephen Welch said,

    November 13, 2008 at 7:14 am

    I am a pastor in Nova Scotia and I have not heard about this plan. We do not have Bell or Telus in many parts of Nova Scotia. There is certainly no such plan with Aliant or Eastlink. This story was circulating in the U.S. last year and was never verified. There is a website for current legends like this, but I cannot remember the web address. I am always sceptial of these kinds of reports coming from the internet when you cannot verify it. I am more sceptical when the information comes from a blog where the author does not identify himself.

  5. Andrew Duggan said,

    November 13, 2008 at 8:02 am

    The idea is called Net Neutrality. Access to the Internet (even residential class) has always been sold as sort of pipe for information. You send and receive bits over that plumbing. The cost of the infrastructure of the core network (plumbing) is built into what you are already paying for your connection to the Internet.

    The big Telecom and Cable companies want to change this into the subscribe to site model, very much like how the linked article suggests.

    This fight over net neutrality has been raging in the USA for a couple of years. The major front is in the FCC. So if you want to know more about it just Google “net neutrality”.

    It’s not a hoax.

  6. Jonathan said,

    November 13, 2008 at 9:27 am

    I too am a pastor. And as the one who posted this article on my personal “political commentary” blogsite, let me assure you that it was based reputable reports. I also have a personal friend who is an employee in Telus, and he confirmed the report prior to me posting it as well.
    J Thomas

  7. November 13, 2008 at 11:09 am

    I’m very familiar with the net neutrality issue, but the article makes a very specific allegation against specific companies. Like the others, I could not find a single reference to this outside of Parkinson’s article (which appears on several websites) to Bell Canada or Telus proposing such a specific scheme. I could easily verify the SMS charges. I think that the lack of other information on this makes the specific allegations suspect.

  8. Andrew Duggan said,

    November 13, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    Re #7,

    Perhaps we’re talking past each other, but it seems as though the article was speaking about per site fees. This is major issue of what the Net Neutrality is all about. Comcast and TimeWarner and Verizon want this too. It’s not just those two.

    Before Telecom and cable companies can announce plans or schemes to change their Internet access service plan pricing, they need to have a regulatory basis for doing so. Telecom and cable companies are still fairly regulated, and don’t just announce these kinds of things. They first get the regulations that govern their operations changed, then they proceed.

    The text messaging (SMS) charges, was not the point of the article, it is an example, of what kind of communication (fighting the Telecoms over what some consider unfair charges) a free Internet is able to facilitate.

    Granted the article that Lane linked is more than a bit hysterical and clumsy in its presentation, including the uber conspiracy theory stuff like the “New World Order” and “North American Union”, but that doesn’t mean the Telecom and cable companies are not really pursuing per-site fees and other content based subscription schemes for residential Internet access. The specifics that were mentioned are hyperbolic to be sure. The author would have you believe the subscription plan would be very narrow, and while that is not likely to be as narrow as he would have you believe, the principle is the same. The hysterical presentation actually hurts the cause he is trying to advance, but nevertheless, the Telecom and cable companies would much rather have a content based subscription than selling data pipes. The restriction on free information is a by-product not the goal. The Telecom and cable companies just want a more lucrative revenue stream. The real money for them is to get the content providers to pay too and to pay even more than the “consumer” does. The mostly unintended consequence of that would fundamentally change what the Internet is.

    Both Telus and Rogers were mentioned in a CBCNews article from two years ago.
    Even the wacky left gets it.

    This is hardly news.

  9. November 13, 2008 at 3:23 pm


    I think that we’re on the same side. I’m a big supporter of net neutrality. Hysterical conspiracy theorists like Parkinson and nut jobs like Huffington don’t help our cause, though. I’d prefer to see verifiable facts that can be presented as a solid case to the legislature.

  10. Tommy said,

    November 13, 2008 at 8:02 pm

    The argument in the posted site seems to be misrepresenting the opposition to Net Neutrality. The big ISPs don’t want to charge you to access individual websites. They DO want to privileged certain kinds of traffic. Comcast has been doing this in the US, for example, but has stopped recently due to pressure from consumers and the government. I’m a big Net Neutrality advocate, but the site posted seems more like fear mongering than anything else, especially considering the lack of any credible source, link, etc.

  11. Jonathan said,

    November 13, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    If you all would simply read what I actually posted at this ‘debate’ would be over. Consider the facts:
    1. This was a verifiable news account. I checked up with an alternate source before posting. (As a Reformed gospel minister, I am well aware of that need!)
    2. Rather than simply reiterate what was already ‘out there’, I chose to give the actual article of the author (K. Parkinson).
    3. I headed the whole thing up by saying, (Quote) Important Disclaimer: Printing this article does not mean an endorsement of everything from either this writer or the Global Research – Ed.

    So now, it’s not just “some guys blog” (comment 1)
    It’s not “far-fetched” (comment 3)
    It’s not unverifiable (comment 4)
    It is a “specific allegation against specific companies” (comment 7), made by a specific person who put his name to it, and which was checked out within one of those companies myself.

    Finally, I am not a consipiracist either. But I do see a danger when it comes up. Talmudge Spence once said, “Lord, help me to hear the serpent’s hiss before I feel his fangs”.

    The whole point of this article was to show that if there was a ‘fee for use’ applied to the internet use, we would see the “death of the internet as we know it”. What’s the conspiracy and all the hysteria about posting that?

    By His Grace,

    J Thomas,
    Editor – Heritage Report
    Pastor – Sovereign Grace Fellowship (

    There. Now there’s no more anonymity so all our difficulties should be over. :)

  12. Andrew Duggan said,

    November 13, 2008 at 9:49 pm

    Mr. Thomas,

    Perhaps hysterical was too strong, but phrases such as

    diabolical plot
    It’s all part of the corporate plan for a New World Order
    global corporate takeover
    the North American Union
    and a long list of other deadly deeds that the elite in society have planned for us

    are a bit over the top.

    The “New World Order” and the “North American Union” are both well-known conspiracy theories.

    The article seemed (to me at least) more aimed at evoking an emotional response rather than informing on an important issue, which Net Neutrality is.

  13. Jonathan said,

    November 13, 2008 at 11:55 pm

    Mr. Duggan,
    Thanks for your comment. I mean it, and I respect your view. I don’t wish to “take over” another person’s blog to carry this on (I’d be willing to say more if you wish on mine), but I felt a word of explanation was needed.

    By the way, I have talked with at least 2 elected Members of Parliament who have confirmed that the concept of the N.A. Union is legitimate. I readily admit there are a variety of interpretations as to what that may include and mean, but the FACT is that there are both corporate and political desires to bring down the borders throughout N.A. in some respects. (Free Trade, etc. is just one of the agreements that I can see being a part of it).

    I quoted a man who holds some pretty radical views on a lot of things. I stated that I do not endorse all his views nor those of the site he often writes for. But a fact is still a fact even if it is the ‘village idiot’ who states it. It may have less credibility in a legal situation, but it does not change the fact.

    If a prison inmate serving time for murder states, “This world could not have happened by chance. It must have been created by a Supreme Power”, we do not throw out the doctrine of creation because of who stated it. We might do well to find a more credible person to verify the statement, but the fact remains. I think you get my point.

    In any case, I will respect both owner of this blog and the purpose for this site and not carry this on further here. You are free to contact me directly for further clarification, or comment on either of my personal sites.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: