Supreme Court Grants Leave in Deferral Account Case


  1. Your summary missed a few key points. First, you forgot to mention that the CRTC actually wants half the money for broadband, 5% for improved accessibility to communications services for disabled Canadians and the remainder would be refunded to the consumers in low cost serving areas (major urban centres) who overpaid for phone service in order to create the deferral account.

    Secondly, the granting of leave was not just to the Consumers Association / PIAC motion, but also to the ILECs, who want all of the money to go into rural broadband. The Supreme Court appears to be hearing whether the CRTC had the authority (under sections 7, 27, and 47) to come out with its ruling, not deciding on the merits of one side or the other.

  2. FEES
    oh like collecting an early termination fee, when i tape bell caanda saying they are the cause of the breach then giving the credit back to me then stealing it off my dads credit card on an account that should have been closed

    These kinds a fees?

  3. Deferral accounts and rural broadband
    What may ultimately be up for decision is the regulatory power of the CRTC. If they are not upheld on this one, as the Federal Court of Appeals upheld 2008-1, then how much real regulatory power do they have? I hoped the SCC would refuse to hear the case but once again, delays have been injected into Canada’s painfully slow rollout of broadband to rural areas.