Of course it is absurd to lump the 2 together, one is about morals and ethics, the other is religion vs science. There's no reason to believe that there is any link between a specific moral and ethical viewpoint and a completely unrelated religious or scientific viewpoint.
Abortion is not a scientific issue, it's morality, it's ethics, it's politics. Science can help influence it by deciding at what stage a complete set of DNA exists, or at what stage a beating heart, or when the first breath occurs, or any of a number of other milestones along the developmental process. But science can not place a value on the fetus at any stage of the process, nor can science decide whether it is "right" or "wrong" to stop that process at any point. That needs to be left to morals, ethics, and politics.
Evolution is a scientific issue. Morality, ethics, and politics are irrelevant. Politicians can pass any law they want, it won't change what actually happens.
Creationism is a religious issue. It has no basis in science because it isn't falsifiable. Politicians can make it mandatory to teach it, can make everyone say they believe in it, but they can't make it scientific, nor can they make it true.
But why on earth would a specific position on a moral issue have any bearing on that same person's position on an unrelated scientific issue?
I will leave out the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" arguments, and disregard that this whole thread is way off topic of science as this is a moral/legal/ethical question and not a scientific one.
you can clearly see how such an ability would be seen as a social positive by those who believe that abortion is wrong.
The argument can be made that making it illegal to advertise the services of an abortionist, or illegal to provide such services, would not necessarily reduce the instance of such events, but only the quality and safety of the services. Having women deal with unlicensed pseudo-doctors offering home-brewed chemical concoctions or dirty surgical procedures would not help to save the fetus, but could put the woman's life at risk as well.
Now don't take that as an argument from me that either side is "right" or "wrong" in this particular debate, it wasn't meant as such, only to point out that the outcome of such legislation by itself may not have the exact outcome desired by those who propose it. My own viewpoint on this issue is... rather complicated, and something that I don't think I will get in to here.
The thing is, even without the additional evidence, evolution would still "win" on the scientific scale for 2 reasons: 1) it is falsifiable. 2) it has not yet been falsified.
In the absence of any other theories, that alone makes it the most likely. Even if there was very little evidence at all (which of course is not the case with evolution)
In the case of evolution, the other "competing" theory fails right at number 1, it' not falsifiable, so it's simply not science.
Put another way, if a scientist puts out a brand new theory on something that was previously completely unexplained, and it is both falsifiable, and nobody has yet falsified it, I would consider that theory "true" until either someone falsifies it (in which case I would consider the theory to now be "false") or until a competing theory emerges that also meets those criteria. Only then does the weight of evidence behind each theory really matter.
Now I admit that this doesn't mean we're always "right" about what we know. But it does mean that we always believe the best possible explanation for any and all natural phenomenon.
[Devil's advocate]... Species could evolve "some" but not enough to get from the initial nothingness to where we are today. That would be a position somewhere "between" evolution and creationism. (eg, humans could have evolved from an ape like creature, but never from a single cell organism, something essential to the belief that we got where we are today exclusively on evolution) [/devil's advocate]
That said. I'm a sceptic, and have a scientific mind. As such, I believe any theory that can't be falsified is not science, and as such creationism, intelligent design, and all other such theories are "not even wrong" and don't belong in any form of science.
I do believe that evolution is what has brought us from primordial goo, all the way to where we are today (though I admit that it is one mind-boggling feat!)
Per-capita income is only one side of the coin, what about per-capita expenses?
Our dollar is worth more than the US Dollar, but when every product costs significantly more than it does in the US, it doesn't make us feel "rich"... (not to mention the significantly higher taxes we pay)
The "cheap theatre" here has shows for $5, but they only get movies about the same time they appear on DVD, additionally the theatre is pretty much falling apart, you have to pick your seat carefully, and many of their screens have tears in them...
To go to a real theatre and see first run shows, the price is $12-$15...
This would actually cause a difficult question. By publishing a book as "Tolkien" you would be running afoul of the trademark. However you might have grounds to show that the trademark itself is invalid, or at least can't be used to stop that situation. That would quite likely be a situation that would make it all the way to a court room.
Actually that is why it's such a great example. It shows exactly where the line is.
Apple Computers and Apple Records each had their own separate businesses in unrelated market segments, and neither one was infringing the other's trademark. Then when Apple Computers decided to get in to the music business that all changed and they suddenly ran afoul of Apple Records' trademark. There was a court case around this, and the 2 parties have come to an understanding.
Back to the case at hand, as long as the accused in this case stays out of the book publishing business, then they aren't infringing on any trademarks.
Trademark law is not to protect a person or a company, it's to protect the consumer. It's how I know when I buy an Apple iPhone with the logo with the bite out of it that it was actually made by Apple Computers and not some guy in his basement who used parts that will fall apart as soon as I send him the money. It means that I know that when I buy any branded item that it is legitimate. (Of course people do circumvent this all the time, but there's only so much that can be done to stop the illegal activity)
In general, as long as there is no risk of the average consumer mistaking a product that came from the supposed infringer with a genuine product from the trademark holder, no infringement has likely taken place.
It all depends how you use it. I can say that I drive a Ford, and that's perfectly legal. I can wear a button saying that I hate Fords, I can even publish a book about how Henry Ford lived, that's all perfectly legal. What I can't legally do is build a car and call it a Ford, Or operate any automotive business with the name "Ford", because that is protected by trademark law. (I could however start a landscaping company called "Ford's landscaping" and it would NOT infringe on the trademark because it's not competing in the same market segment as the car company by the same name (for example see apple computer vs apple records))
If the person published a book and claimed to be Tolkien then the concerns of the Tolkien Estate would be valid. But that is not what is happening here, instead they are simply talking about the historical figure Tolkien which is perfectly legal and there's nothing (legal) that the Tolkien Estate can do about it.
but THIS fibre optic cable has gold plated connectors!! (and yes, I have seen it (gold on the plastic part around the transparent centre.) I laughed, some people will buy ANYTHING.)
I work for a company that provides TV service by means of digital set top boxes. The boxes output up to 720p/1080i resolution and have both component and HDMI outputs. Our standard for installation is to only use HDMI as an absolute last resort. Component is capable of exactly the same quality, and we never have issues of handshaking/device limits/etc.
We've been bitten too many times by odd compatibility issues with HDMI, weird audio bugs, etc. but we've never had anyone complain that component wouldn't let them view their content. (unfortunately some new TVs don't have component anymore...)
You stated that drivers who can not deal with a stuck open throttle should not be driving. I maintain that any vehicle that does not allow for a "manual" way of doing such should be banned from public roads.
If it is entirely driver error, than it doesn't matter if you can shift in to neutral, as you could also simply take your foot off the accelerator. If however it is a computer issue, then it DOES matter, because the same computer that would be malfunctioning in regards to the accelerator must now be trusted to NOT malfunction in terms of the gear shift and/or ignition.
Many vehicles have safeguards to prevent over-reving the engine, it wouldn't surprise me if keeping your foot on the accelerator would prevent a shift to neutral when it's working properly, let alone when it's misbehaving for any reason.
I maintain that I do not want to ever be forced to drive a vehicle without a manual way of stopping it, no computer intervention required. I need a way to disconnect power from the wheels without ANY computer being involved. Otherwise I am trusting my life to code that has not had anywhere near rigorous enough testing behind it.
Your "dawn of personal computing" must have been very late. this is a relatively new feature. Additionally, one that most people I've encountered are unaware of. It's great for us geeks, but the average person doesn't even know it exists. Additionally, I have, more than once, had a computer that failed to respond to that input and required me to use the physical switch at the back, or in the case of a certain IBM laptop, pull both the power cord and the battery.
These are not viable options for the average consumer on a vehicle.
please read the comment you are replying to before spouting off like that. I clearly stated that on these vehicles gear shifting is controlled by computer. So no, you can't necessarilly shift in to neutral.
the cars do have off switches. The same push buttons that start the car also turn them off.
This is only partially true. The push button start does allow you to turn off the car, but only under 2 conditions. 1) the car is parked and you touch the button briefly 2) the car is not parked and you push and hold the button for 4 seconds.
The problem is, because people don't read manuals (nor should they have to for this) and because under normal circumstances they never try to turn off a car that isn't parked, nobody knows about method 2. so people HAVE tried to shut off the vehicle by touching the start button, often repeatedly, with no success.
Beyond that little issue is the fact that the shutdown is controlled by the very same computer that may, or may not, be malfunctioning causing the very emergency you are trying to get out of. If a computer stops properly responding to 1 input (the accelerator) can you trust that it will respond properly to another (the shutdown command)
I hope I am never forced to drive a vehicle where there is no manual shutdown for the computer in case of emergency.
"Paranoia" as you put it, while driving, is a GOOD THING. The single largest danger on public roads right now is that people don't realize how dangerous it truly is to operate a several thousand pound machine at speeds more than 10 times faster than they can run. Anything that makes people realize this, and gives them a way to safely bring a malfunctioning (for any reason) vehicle to a stop, is welcome in my books.
Beyond that, your assertion that people can disable their vehicle with the ignition switch is basically false in the vehicles being described here. To disable the vehicle you have to press and hold the start button for 3-5 seconds, this is not labelled in any way, is not intuitive, and is not something the driver has ever had to do in the course of their normal activities. In addition it is no where near "quickly", and it also relies on the same computer operating properly that you may be trying to shut down for a malfunction.
This is way beyond poor design, and in to things that should be criminal.
And if your car's interface does not provide for any of the normal ways of handling it, the car shouldn't be allowed on the road.
Unfortunately, many modern cars have no easy way of shutting off the engine except when parked, the same computer that handles accelerator inputs also controls gear shifting, and ignition, and the emergency-brake (what part of EMERGENCY brake do designers no longer understand????)
So your only hope is that standing on the brake pedal will a) actually work, and b) work well enough to overcome the throttle fast enough to avoid a collision.
This is way beyond poor automotive design, and well in to things that should be criminal.
Many (most?) Canadian telcoms have some foreign ownership, the question is how much, there's a maximum percentage allowed by the law (my memory says 30%, but I don't remember for certain) Over the years Rogers has had ownership from Sprint, TELUS has ownership by Verizon, Bell has had ownership by AT&T, I'm sure the list goes on and on. From a government stand point the critical part has been making sure that the foreign owners never have enough of a stake to control the company.
All of the major telecoms are in favour of reducing the restrictions on foreign ownership. They just don't want one-off exceptions like the one given to Globalive.
Personally I believe that allowing foreign ownership isn't a bad thing provided you also have strong net-neutrality/common-carrier laws to offset the risk. Who cares who owns the companies, as long as owning the company doesn't allow you to control what people do with their communications service? Additionally, allowing more foreign competition would be good for a market that has been allowed to stagnate with few participants running quasi-monopolies.
Bell hasn't had any large tie with US companies since the 60s... I'm not sure what percentage is now owned by foreign interests, but I'm certain it's below the regulatory threshold (on a side note, "Bell Canada" didn't really start off as a subsidiary of Bell in the US, but rather as a separate Canadian entity owned by the father of Alexander Graham Bell who did a lot of his original work in Canada.)
I know that Verizon used to own the maximum legally allowed amount of TELUS stock (I seem to think it was about 30%) however they recently got rid of that because Canadian laws wouldn't allow them to go any higher, and they really wanted more than just a small share.
All the major Canadian telecom companies are in favour of allowing foreign ownership. They just want the rules to be the same for everyone, that's what pisses them off so much about Globalive, the fact that an exemption was given to one company but the law was left unchanged causing other companies to be at a disadvantage.
Now as to whether or not the rule itself is a good idea, that's a different argument entirely. Originally the worry was that foreign ownership of telecommunications companies would allow foreign interests to control who we communicate with and how, this is not generally a good thing, national security, national sovereignty, and all that jazz. However I believe that as long as telecommunication companies are limited to simply providing communications, and stay out of the business of controlling what you use them for, then it shouldn't matter who owns the companies, and competition is generally a good thing. With that in mind, I personally believe that the right answer is to remove the foreign ownership requirements, but only in conjunction with strong net-neutrality/common carrier legislation. (Allow anyone to compete, and nobody to control) Now I think the rules may need to be different when you look at companies that produce media as well (such as Bell who own CTV) because providing communications infrastructure is one thing, providing the content to fill it is something different, and maybe the rule would have to state that companies producing media follow different rules than those simply carrying whatever signals people choose to send.
Congratulations, you're the first person to post that actually seems to understand the issue. This has nothing to do with whether the foreign ownership rules are "right" or "fair" this is entirely about making exceptions to laws for specific people/companies.
The only way a civilized society can function is if everyone is playing from the same set of rules. You can't allow one company to circumvent the rules while prohibiting anyone else from doing the same.
The judge in this case sensibly ruled that the government has 2 choices, make Globalive follow the rules, or change the rules to be the same for everyone.
Now the ball is back in the government's court, and they can decide what to do with our foreign ownership rules, and they can decide what to do for EVERYBODY this time.
(For those interested in where our scummy telcos (Bell, Rogers, Telus) lined up, they all, of course, favoured less competition, so wanted to get Globalive out of business regardless of the merits of the case, though only Telus spoke at trial. We know they're hypocrites because their execs have all publicly lobbied for opening up telcos to foreign ownership and financing, while arguing against it here.)
It's actually not hypocritical at all. What the major telecoms are saying is that they are in favour of relaxed foreign ownership rules, but they are NOT in favour of selective enforcement of the rules. Currently Globalive is allowed to operate as essentially a foreign company on Canadian soil, meanwhile nobody else is allowed to raise money overseas. How is this fair? If Globalive can do it, so should everyone else.
The problem here isn't the decision to allow Globalive to operate, it's the inequality of allowing them to do this while preventing anyone else from doing the same.
The court ruled (sensibly) that the government can't have it both ways, they need to either make Globalive play by the rules, OR change the rules (they're the government, they can do that.) The major telecom companies, while not overly wanting the competition, DO want a level playing field, and would prefer the government fix the rules.
Honestly, I don't see Wind Mobile shutting down. What I see as most likely in this case is for the government to relax foreign ownership rules, theoretically enabling more competition. But doing so in a fair way such that everybody works from the same rule book, which is the only fair way to do this. One time exceptions just aren't the way things should be done.
The company I work for has both "on-shore" and "off-shore" call centres, in fact at any given moment when you dial in to the queue you could get either one and you won't know which. I've had several customers complain of people they couldn't understand. Of the ones I was able to track down, every single one was in a domestic call centre, and not a foreign one. You see here it's illegal to hire based on ethnicity, so an inability to speak english is legally protected. The offshore call centres can hire only people who are fluent.
Regardless of this though, that's a seperate issue. That's not an ethics problem, that's a customer service problem.
Off-shore calll centres are competing directly with On-shore call centres, they are competing based on 2 major points, cost, and customer service. Some companies are more worried about one, some about the other. If all they care about is money, their customer service will be lousy no matter where the call centre is physically located.
Really it's no different from you picking any other business to deal with, you may pick the one that's cheaper, or the one providing better customer service. It's up to you. That's competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it is absurd to lump the 2 together, one is about morals and ethics, the other is religion vs science.
There's no reason to believe that there is any link between a specific moral and ethical viewpoint and a completely unrelated religious or scientific viewpoint.
Abortion is not a scientific issue, it's morality, it's ethics, it's politics. Science can help influence it by deciding at what stage a complete set of DNA exists, or at what stage a beating heart, or when the first breath occurs, or any of a number of other milestones along the developmental process. But science can not place a value on the fetus at any stage of the process, nor can science decide whether it is "right" or "wrong" to stop that process at any point. That needs to be left to morals, ethics, and politics.
Evolution is a scientific issue. Morality, ethics, and politics are irrelevant. Politicians can pass any law they want, it won't change what actually happens.
Creationism is a religious issue. It has no basis in science because it isn't falsifiable. Politicians can make it mandatory to teach it, can make everyone say they believe in it, but they can't make it scientific, nor can they make it true.
But why on earth would a specific position on a moral issue have any bearing on that same person's position on an unrelated scientific issue?
I will leave out the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" arguments, and disregard that this whole thread is way off topic of science as this is a moral/legal/ethical question and not a scientific one.
you can clearly see how such an ability would be seen as a social positive by those who believe that abortion is wrong.
The argument can be made that making it illegal to advertise the services of an abortionist, or illegal to provide such services, would not necessarily reduce the instance of such events, but only the quality and safety of the services. Having women deal with unlicensed pseudo-doctors offering home-brewed chemical concoctions or dirty surgical procedures would not help to save the fetus, but could put the woman's life at risk as well.
Now don't take that as an argument from me that either side is "right" or "wrong" in this particular debate, it wasn't meant as such, only to point out that the outcome of such legislation by itself may not have the exact outcome desired by those who propose it. My own viewpoint on this issue is... rather complicated, and something that I don't think I will get in to here.
The thing is, even without the additional evidence, evolution would still "win" on the scientific scale for 2 reasons:
1) it is falsifiable.
2) it has not yet been falsified.
In the absence of any other theories, that alone makes it the most likely. Even if there was very little evidence at all (which of course is not the case with evolution)
In the case of evolution, the other "competing" theory fails right at number 1, it' not falsifiable, so it's simply not science.
Put another way, if a scientist puts out a brand new theory on something that was previously completely unexplained, and it is both falsifiable, and nobody has yet falsified it, I would consider that theory "true" until either someone falsifies it (in which case I would consider the theory to now be "false") or until a competing theory emerges that also meets those criteria. Only then does the weight of evidence behind each theory really matter.
Now I admit that this doesn't mean we're always "right" about what we know. But it does mean that we always believe the best possible explanation for any and all natural phenomenon.
[Devil's advocate]... Species could evolve "some" but not enough to get from the initial nothingness to where we are today. That would be a position somewhere "between" evolution and creationism. (eg, humans could have evolved from an ape like creature, but never from a single cell organism, something essential to the belief that we got where we are today exclusively on evolution) [/devil's advocate]
That said. I'm a sceptic, and have a scientific mind. As such, I believe any theory that can't be falsified is not science, and as such creationism, intelligent design, and all other such theories are "not even wrong" and don't belong in any form of science.
I do believe that evolution is what has brought us from primordial goo, all the way to where we are today (though I admit that it is one mind-boggling feat!)
Per-capita income is only one side of the coin, what about per-capita expenses?
Our dollar is worth more than the US Dollar, but when every product costs significantly more than it does in the US, it doesn't make us feel "rich"... (not to mention the significantly higher taxes we pay)
The "cheap theatre" here has shows for $5, but they only get movies about the same time they appear on DVD, additionally the theatre is pretty much falling apart, you have to pick your seat carefully, and many of their screens have tears in them...
To go to a real theatre and see first run shows, the price is $12-$15...
This would actually cause a difficult question. By publishing a book as "Tolkien" you would be running afoul of the trademark. However you might have grounds to show that the trademark itself is invalid, or at least can't be used to stop that situation.
That would quite likely be a situation that would make it all the way to a court room.
Actually that is why it's such a great example. It shows exactly where the line is.
Apple Computers and Apple Records each had their own separate businesses in unrelated market segments, and neither one was infringing the other's trademark. Then when Apple Computers decided to get in to the music business that all changed and they suddenly ran afoul of Apple Records' trademark. There was a court case around this, and the 2 parties have come to an understanding.
Back to the case at hand, as long as the accused in this case stays out of the book publishing business, then they aren't infringing on any trademarks.
Trademark law is not to protect a person or a company, it's to protect the consumer. It's how I know when I buy an Apple iPhone with the logo with the bite out of it that it was actually made by Apple Computers and not some guy in his basement who used parts that will fall apart as soon as I send him the money. It means that I know that when I buy any branded item that it is legitimate. (Of course people do circumvent this all the time, but there's only so much that can be done to stop the illegal activity)
In general, as long as there is no risk of the average consumer mistaking a product that came from the supposed infringer with a genuine product from the trademark holder, no infringement has likely taken place.
It all depends how you use it. I can say that I drive a Ford, and that's perfectly legal. I can wear a button saying that I hate Fords, I can even publish a book about how Henry Ford lived, that's all perfectly legal. What I can't legally do is build a car and call it a Ford, Or operate any automotive business with the name "Ford", because that is protected by trademark law. (I could however start a landscaping company called "Ford's landscaping" and it would NOT infringe on the trademark because it's not competing in the same market segment as the car company by the same name (for example see apple computer vs apple records))
If the person published a book and claimed to be Tolkien then the concerns of the Tolkien Estate would be valid. But that is not what is happening here, instead they are simply talking about the historical figure Tolkien which is perfectly legal and there's nothing (legal) that the Tolkien Estate can do about it.
but THIS fibre optic cable has gold plated connectors!! (and yes, I have seen it (gold on the plastic part around the transparent centre.) I laughed, some people will buy ANYTHING.)
weren't listening? or were listening to silence? most phones still put out some low volume "white noise" while muted, did they control for that?
I work for a company that provides TV service by means of digital set top boxes. The boxes output up to 720p/1080i resolution and have both component and HDMI outputs.
Our standard for installation is to only use HDMI as an absolute last resort. Component is capable of exactly the same quality, and we never have issues of handshaking/device limits/etc.
We've been bitten too many times by odd compatibility issues with HDMI, weird audio bugs, etc. but we've never had anyone complain that component wouldn't let them view their content. (unfortunately some new TVs don't have component anymore...)
no, but unlike modern equipment, the one bought 30 years ago still works just fine!
You stated that drivers who can not deal with a stuck open throttle should not be driving.
I maintain that any vehicle that does not allow for a "manual" way of doing such should be banned from public roads.
If it is entirely driver error, than it doesn't matter if you can shift in to neutral, as you could also simply take your foot off the accelerator.
If however it is a computer issue, then it DOES matter, because the same computer that would be malfunctioning in regards to the accelerator must now be trusted to NOT malfunction in terms of the gear shift and/or ignition.
Many vehicles have safeguards to prevent over-reving the engine, it wouldn't surprise me if keeping your foot on the accelerator would prevent a shift to neutral when it's working properly, let alone when it's misbehaving for any reason.
I maintain that I do not want to ever be forced to drive a vehicle without a manual way of stopping it, no computer intervention required. I need a way to disconnect power from the wheels without ANY computer being involved. Otherwise I am trusting my life to code that has not had anywhere near rigorous enough testing behind it.
Your "dawn of personal computing" must have been very late. this is a relatively new feature. Additionally, one that most people I've encountered are unaware of. It's great for us geeks, but the average person doesn't even know it exists. Additionally, I have, more than once, had a computer that failed to respond to that input and required me to use the physical switch at the back, or in the case of a certain IBM laptop, pull both the power cord and the battery.
These are not viable options for the average consumer on a vehicle.
please read the comment you are replying to before spouting off like that. I clearly stated that on these vehicles gear shifting is controlled by computer. So no, you can't necessarilly shift in to neutral.
the cars do have off switches. The same push buttons that start the car also turn them off.
This is only partially true. The push button start does allow you to turn off the car, but only under 2 conditions.
1) the car is parked and you touch the button briefly
2) the car is not parked and you push and hold the button for 4 seconds.
The problem is, because people don't read manuals (nor should they have to for this) and because under normal circumstances they never try to turn off a car that isn't parked, nobody knows about method 2. so people HAVE tried to shut off the vehicle by touching the start button, often repeatedly, with no success.
Beyond that little issue is the fact that the shutdown is controlled by the very same computer that may, or may not, be malfunctioning causing the very emergency you are trying to get out of. If a computer stops properly responding to 1 input (the accelerator) can you trust that it will respond properly to another (the shutdown command)
I hope I am never forced to drive a vehicle where there is no manual shutdown for the computer in case of emergency.
This is borderline criminal interface design.
"Paranoia" as you put it, while driving, is a GOOD THING. The single largest danger on public roads right now is that people don't realize how dangerous it truly is to operate a several thousand pound machine at speeds more than 10 times faster than they can run. Anything that makes people realize this, and gives them a way to safely bring a malfunctioning (for any reason) vehicle to a stop, is welcome in my books.
Beyond that, your assertion that people can disable their vehicle with the ignition switch is basically false in the vehicles being described here. To disable the vehicle you have to press and hold the start button for 3-5 seconds, this is not labelled in any way, is not intuitive, and is not something the driver has ever had to do in the course of their normal activities. In addition it is no where near "quickly", and it also relies on the same computer operating properly that you may be trying to shut down for a malfunction.
This is way beyond poor design, and in to things that should be criminal.
And if your car's interface does not provide for any of the normal ways of handling it, the car shouldn't be allowed on the road.
Unfortunately, many modern cars have no easy way of shutting off the engine except when parked, the same computer that handles accelerator inputs also controls gear shifting, and ignition, and the emergency-brake (what part of EMERGENCY brake do designers no longer understand????)
So your only hope is that standing on the brake pedal will a) actually work, and b) work well enough to overcome the throttle fast enough to avoid a collision.
This is way beyond poor automotive design, and well in to things that should be criminal.
Many (most?) Canadian telcoms have some foreign ownership, the question is how much, there's a maximum percentage allowed by the law (my memory says 30%, but I don't remember for certain)
Over the years Rogers has had ownership from Sprint, TELUS has ownership by Verizon, Bell has had ownership by AT&T, I'm sure the list goes on and on. From a government stand point the critical part has been making sure that the foreign owners never have enough of a stake to control the company.
All of the major telecoms are in favour of reducing the restrictions on foreign ownership. They just don't want one-off exceptions like the one given to Globalive.
Personally I believe that allowing foreign ownership isn't a bad thing provided you also have strong net-neutrality/common-carrier laws to offset the risk. Who cares who owns the companies, as long as owning the company doesn't allow you to control what people do with their communications service? Additionally, allowing more foreign competition would be good for a market that has been allowed to stagnate with few participants running quasi-monopolies.
Bell hasn't had any large tie with US companies since the 60s... I'm not sure what percentage is now owned by foreign interests, but I'm certain it's below the regulatory threshold (on a side note, "Bell Canada" didn't really start off as a subsidiary of Bell in the US, but rather as a separate Canadian entity owned by the father of Alexander Graham Bell who did a lot of his original work in Canada.)
I know that Verizon used to own the maximum legally allowed amount of TELUS stock (I seem to think it was about 30%) however they recently got rid of that because Canadian laws wouldn't allow them to go any higher, and they really wanted more than just a small share.
All the major Canadian telecom companies are in favour of allowing foreign ownership. They just want the rules to be the same for everyone, that's what pisses them off so much about Globalive, the fact that an exemption was given to one company but the law was left unchanged causing other companies to be at a disadvantage.
Now as to whether or not the rule itself is a good idea, that's a different argument entirely. Originally the worry was that foreign ownership of telecommunications companies would allow foreign interests to control who we communicate with and how, this is not generally a good thing, national security, national sovereignty, and all that jazz. However I believe that as long as telecommunication companies are limited to simply providing communications, and stay out of the business of controlling what you use them for, then it shouldn't matter who owns the companies, and competition is generally a good thing. With that in mind, I personally believe that the right answer is to remove the foreign ownership requirements, but only in conjunction with strong net-neutrality/common carrier legislation. (Allow anyone to compete, and nobody to control)
Now I think the rules may need to be different when you look at companies that produce media as well (such as Bell who own CTV) because providing communications infrastructure is one thing, providing the content to fill it is something different, and maybe the rule would have to state that companies producing media follow different rules than those simply carrying whatever signals people choose to send.
I don't think they're likely to ignore it, they've been pushed in to a corner, and they'll have to actually fix the mess they made in the first place.
Either make everyone follow the rules, or change the rules, none of these one off exceptions for specific companies.
Congratulations, you're the first person to post that actually seems to understand the issue. This has nothing to do with whether the foreign ownership rules are "right" or "fair" this is entirely about making exceptions to laws for specific people/companies.
The only way a civilized society can function is if everyone is playing from the same set of rules. You can't allow one company to circumvent the rules while prohibiting anyone else from doing the same.
The judge in this case sensibly ruled that the government has 2 choices, make Globalive follow the rules, or change the rules to be the same for everyone.
Now the ball is back in the government's court, and they can decide what to do with our foreign ownership rules, and they can decide what to do for EVERYBODY this time.
(For those interested in where our scummy telcos (Bell, Rogers, Telus) lined up, they all, of course, favoured less competition, so wanted to get Globalive out of business regardless of the merits of the case, though only Telus spoke at trial. We know they're hypocrites because their execs have all publicly lobbied for opening up telcos to foreign ownership and financing, while arguing against it here.)
It's actually not hypocritical at all. What the major telecoms are saying is that they are in favour of relaxed foreign ownership rules, but they are NOT in favour of selective enforcement of the rules. Currently Globalive is allowed to operate as essentially a foreign company on Canadian soil, meanwhile nobody else is allowed to raise money overseas. How is this fair? If Globalive can do it, so should everyone else.
The problem here isn't the decision to allow Globalive to operate, it's the inequality of allowing them to do this while preventing anyone else from doing the same.
The court ruled (sensibly) that the government can't have it both ways, they need to either make Globalive play by the rules, OR change the rules (they're the government, they can do that.) The major telecom companies, while not overly wanting the competition, DO want a level playing field, and would prefer the government fix the rules.
Honestly, I don't see Wind Mobile shutting down. What I see as most likely in this case is for the government to relax foreign ownership rules, theoretically enabling more competition. But doing so in a fair way such that everybody works from the same rule book, which is the only fair way to do this. One time exceptions just aren't the way things should be done.
The company I work for has both "on-shore" and "off-shore" call centres, in fact at any given moment when you dial in to the queue you could get either one and you won't know which.
I've had several customers complain of people they couldn't understand. Of the ones I was able to track down, every single one was in a domestic call centre, and not a foreign one. You see here it's illegal to hire based on ethnicity, so an inability to speak english is legally protected. The offshore call centres can hire only people who are fluent.
Regardless of this though, that's a seperate issue. That's not an ethics problem, that's a customer service problem.
Off-shore calll centres are competing directly with On-shore call centres, they are competing based on 2 major points, cost, and customer service. Some companies are more worried about one, some about the other. If all they care about is money, their customer service will be lousy no matter where the call centre is physically located.
Really it's no different from you picking any other business to deal with, you may pick the one that's cheaper, or the one providing better customer service. It's up to you. That's competition.