[kwlug-disc] UBB CRTC decision to be reviewed ...

[unsolicited at swiz.ca]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 18:30:12 -0500, Kyle Spaans <3lucid at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:21 PM,  <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:
>> If UBB is bad, because of limited downloading, the question of
>> downloading
>> what must come up. Which will lead into C32, probably.
> 
> I know it makes it sound like I enjoy wearing tinfoil hats :-P, but I
don't
> think that UBB is about downloading or bandwidth *at all*. I think it's
> about Bell wanting to make ExpressVu more attractive than NetFlix,
> to put it in a nutshell.
> 
> That said, I still think it's a useful exercise to talk about
downloading
> and how much one can/should/would/aught to/might occasionally use.

Per the FP link provided, the pundits are making it about amount of
downloading. e.g. Netflix is in there.

As you can see even from Brent's comments, this very quickly (d)evolves
into a downloading what, consuming how much, making a reasonable total
downloading cap of X, ran., er, deb..., er, discussion.

Once you start debating 'what' is downloaded and whether it's 'reasonable'
to go into an 'appropriate' total, I don't see how C32 won't get sucked in.
[We may actually want it to get sucked in, in the hopes of delaying it even
further, post-election even?]

Especially when they're promoting the idea that home pir...., er,
downloaders, won't be prosecuted (under C32).

Never mind that, reasonably, to make 'backups' of your media you will have
to break the protection scheme, and the mere presence of the tools to do so
will be illegal ...