Industry committee  It's not that we're necessarily liable for it in any way, since we're required by law to pass it on. The sort of thing I'm talking about there is the personalized links that appear in those notices. The notice we receive will tell the end-user to “click here to confirm that you

Industry committee  Could I just jump in there? Perhaps ironically, the CRTC made that finding partly at the behest of large ISPs that at the time did not want to block gambling sites in Quebec and asked the CRTC to step in to assert its jurisdiction in that situation.

Industry committee  I'm not sure of the way the European model, as proposed right now, would go into an ISP's business model. It's targeted at platforms, not at hosting. We don't take the uploads and then host them somewhere in a way that we could take them down. Instead we're just kind of moving th

Industry committee  Look, I don't think it's necessarily technically feasible for every ISP right now to do the kind of blocking that is already proposed. There was no description in the FairPlay application of what site blocking is. We hear a fair amount about DNS blocking, so if that's what blocki

Industry committee  Taking a step back, I feel that there are a few different ways we've talked about to address that possibly illegal infringing content: going after the boxes themselves, or the people distributing the boxes, or identifying where that content is being captured from a legitimate sou

Industry committee  Yes. There are various technical issues here. Without taking too long and going too far into the weeds, I'll say that this is a great example of why people call this sort of regime a slippery slope. If we start down this road of requiring blocking, we're going to run into one pro

Industry committee  No. There's no specific content that we're required to track or log.

Industry committee  I'm just thinking about those high-upload sorts of streams. Service providers could cut off those users if they wanted to by publishing Internet traffic management policies, for which there's a framework through the CRTC. They would have to establish those guidelines and then enf

Industry committee  I can answer that for TekSavvy, but I would be very interested to hear about it, as well, from carriers. For us it largely depends on the platform and on what equipment we have in place. We can see whatever information the carriers give us. We're wholesale providers and so we l

Industry committee  Sorry, I think that the proposal, if I'm not mistaken, is that service providers would be able to charge a $100 rate in order to respond to a Norwich order, in order to disclose the identity of an end-user when that end-user is being sued by a content provider.

Industry committee  We would be charging that rate, and the question would be whether it's an appropriate rate.

Industry committee  We have not gone back and looked at what that would be. It strikes me as probably a reasonable rate, or in the right range.

Industry committee  I'm not sure what you mean by going too far. I think the standard form that uses code that we can process automatically, and that includes the content that's required to be included, would satisfy all of the requirements.

Industry committee  It's a bit of a different issue from pure piracy.

Industry committee  I don't know what went into deciding that particular rate for Rogers. That might be an appropriate rate for TekSavvy also. We may go back and look at it and see that it needs to be something else. We may be interested in exploring more the idea of a scheduled rate specifically fo