Opinions on HSPA and Citywest, round 2

So does this mean we can post our opinions about Citywest being stuck in the past without them threatening lawsuits?

Only if you show your reasoning. And be precise in your facts. They will be checked.

I have been thinking about starting a new Citywest thread or posting on one if another poster starts one, but considering that the last thread was pulled because of lawsuit concerns it may be best to peruse the cases first, which are intended to bring Canadian law in line with that of other leading democracies that place a high value on free speech about public issues. The second one (2009 SCC 62) is shorter. SCC decisions are usually clearly written and often quite interesting. 

scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2 … scc61.html

scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2 … scc62.html

I think that allegations of defamation against a site administrator or citizens exchanging information and opinions about a company of which the City is the sole shareholder would be quite a stretch.

Also, the city council as the shareholder and, of course, a stalwart advocate of transparent government, would inevitably be asked to explain why citizens of the City are being taken to task for talking about a company that the City owns.

Here is a link to the thread that was pulled: scribd.com/doc/24396736/citywest-hspa 

It resides somewhere out there in cyberspace, under which legal jurisdiction I do not know. Several posts were quite informative about technical issues, and I really do not know what the fuss was all about. 

Good point, but I have trouble remembering where the boxes are, and also finding them in the dark since they’re black.

I tend to agree.  I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the following statement:


If somebody asks my opinion, I tell them that they shouldn’t buy a cellular phone from Citywest.  In my opinion, CDMA is old technology and is on the way out.  I think of CDMA as Beta and GSM/HSPA as VHS.  Instead, get an HSPA device from Rogers, Bell, or Telus.  All of them work just fine in Rupert, and you can get a Port Edward number. 

Hopefully soon you’ll be able to get a Prince Rupert number on non-Citywest phones too, so you can port your old number to a new carrier.

I’m hopeful that Citywest will sell HSPA phones in the future.  I haven’t heard any news about this though.  Does anybody know if Citywest will be selling HSPA phones soon?  My understanding is that they only have CDMA phones for sale.

There you go, that should be lawyer-proof.

I’d also like to think that a telephone company owned by a near-bankrupt city would have more important things to do with its limited cash then spend it on lawyers to launch lawsuits against its customers (and owners) because they state an opinion about the lack of HSPA phones at Citywest.  I’m sure I’m right on this point.  I hope. 

Anyway, if we do have a serious conversation about this, let’s just remember the FAQ on libel and slander. 

 

If the taxpayers of Prince Rupert own the phone company, can any Rupertite walk off the street and into any meeting they’re having and say, “I want you in my office, now!” ?
If so, I’m doing that tomorrow.

I have always tried my best to support Citywest.  I moved my long distance to Citywest when we had the choice way back (maybe we have the choice still but I’m not sure of the answer).  I would keep my cell phone with Citywest, except, in my opinion and experience, the service of my cell phone and the many Citywest cell phones I know of, has been inconsistant especially since they went with Northwestel.  Do not get me started about the transition between the services back then - they dropped so many of my calls I would’ve switched then if there had been a choice.  Now we have choices thank goodness.  I’m still not sure how such a small community can support a phone system - I don’t know the economics of the industry.  I still have a citywest cell phone - in fact 3 of them in our household.  But the two newest are from other plans.  Once my phone dies, and you know it will, unless there is significant improvement in the service, I will probably switch also.  The key to keeping Citywest vital is to keep up with technology improvements and to keep service levels high.  Dropped calls mean unhappy customers.

‘Fair comment’, which is the expression of an opinion (rather than of a fact), has always been available as a defence against a defamation. Here is an observation by the Supreme Court of Canada about ‘fair comment’ in Grant v.  Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, the more exhaustive of the two defamation cases just released:

"[31] …WIC Radio expanded the fair comment defence by changing the traditional requirement that the opinion be one that a “fair‑mindedâ€

No, but a Ruperite can communicate to others their opinions, derived from what is known about the company. “Fair comment” allows for “robust debate” of matters of public interest (see previous post).

Also, Citywest is a public body, and citizens can make FOI requests under the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act. The same rules of access and privacy protection apply to a municipal corporation as apply to the municipality itself.

More “fair comments”, I suggest; opinions derived from facts, in particular personal experience with CityWest cell service.

So we now have a “Public Body” owned by a struggling municipality that is threatening it’s citizen owners with legal action for defamation when the management or board decides they do not care for the opinions, interest and concerns being expressed by their citizen owners! Sounds a bit Orwellian to me.

Instead of directly addressing the core issues which is the taxpayer’s concern that Citywest is falling behind technologically and will be unable to compete resulting in one more huge financial blow to the City of Prince Rupert, management, the board or the shareholders have directed a threatening letter be sent to a site administrator that has laboured to provide a valued free service to Prince Rupert. Frankly; it would be very interesting to hear our elected official’s opinion on this matter.

Mig can of course speak for himself  but from where I sit; a  Prince Rupert discussion board fleeing to the US because a City of Prince Rupert  firm gets it’s proverbial nose out of joint is chilling in the extreme. 

It may indeed be time for the citizen owners to use FOI’s to determine just what is going on with our company.  Anyone else interested in participating?

Pick me coach!

That was fast!! BTW… does anyone recall the last public meeting that Citywest held?

[quote=“Speakuppr”]
So we now have a “Public Body” owned by a struggling municipality that is threatening it’s citizen owners with legal action for defamation when the management or board decides they do not care for the opinions, interest and concerns being expressed by their citizen owners! Sounds a bit Orwellian to me.[/quote]

I don’t think they actually threatened anybody, did they?  I’d think that kind of action would backfire.

[quote]
Mig can of course speak for himself  but from where I sit; a  Prince Rupert discussion board fleeing to the US because a City of Prince Rupert  firm gets it’s proverbial nose out of joint is chilling in the extreme.  [/quote]

HTMF didn’t flee, and the Citywest discussions aren’t the reason I sold the site.  It was more about this being a hobby for me, and not really wanting to deal with the other issues surrounding hosting a site.  The person who now owns it has about 100 of these sites, and took HTMF more as a favour to me.

[quote]
It may indeed be time for the citizen owners to use FOI’s to determine just what is going on with our company.  Anyone else interested in participating?[/quote]

I’m always in favour of that.  But I’m hopeful that someone from Citywest can just sign up on HTMF and answer questions.

[quote=“MiG”]
I don’t think they actually threatened anybody, did they?  I’d think that kind of action would backfire.[/quote]

I’ll stand corrected Mig. From the discussions going on here and other threads, I was under the impression that you had received a letter or other communication  from either CityWest or their lawyers regarding a thread that was posted on HTMF.  If this is not the case, any discussion on libel, slander et al is a moot point.

And it’s good to hear that it was primarily other factors with running a discussion board that led you to have HTMF transferred to the US.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for CityWest to sign up and comment using the internet as a medium…

Citywest did ask me to remove the thread.  I see that someone printed it out before we removed it.  It’s linked in a comment earlier in this thread.

Oh don’t ask for that, cause if CityWest signs up and starts participating in forums, then God knows when they’ll return my call asking for service help.

What got me about the request is that it resulted in the whole thread being pulled. There were several informative posts about technical issues. Information about a Bell phone working here - demonstrating that there are two available HSPA networks besides Citywest’s CDMA service - was a bit of a revelation.

If erroneous information caused concern that should have been addressed, either by new information being brought forward or by simply deleting whatever was in error. Removing the entire thread seemed a bit heavy-handed.

If Citywest asked that the thread be removed because opinions they didn’t like were being expressed, that really is a sad comment about this place. Sad to say, but governance seems to be considerably less transparent in Prince Rupert than in other towns and small cities.

 

Hi MiG, Thanks again for the further clarification. Did a representative from Citywest phone you or did you receive a letter from them or their agents? Who called or signed the letter?

In my opinion "A municipal corporation that refuses to dialogue with it’s customers in a free and transparent manner still troubles me, even if any requests to remove a thread cannot be characterized as a threat. Certainly, a more transparent approach would have been to accept your invitation(s) to challenge the “False and Misleading  statements” by posting an “Official” response rather than taking action to stifle discussion by having a thread pulled. "

Certainly when you pulled the original thread you took great pains to issue a warning to all posters about the dangers of defamation.

 

Mig’s said before that HTMF is supposed to be his hobby, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable for him to remove an entire thread when an individual or business contacts him with concerns, raather than carefully sifting through the thread removing suspect posts, which risks more annoying requests from whoever… Although I guess he won’t have to deal with those anymore. :stuck_out_tongue:

You manage to miss the point which is that a municipal corporation contacted the owner of HTMF with a request to repress a discussion on a matter of interest and concern to taxpayers. My opinion is that is detrimental to to our rights to carry on a free dialogue about matters which should be of considerable concern to Prince Rupert taxpayers.

Given CityWest’s approach on this matter, we are still in the dark as to which statements or opinions in the previous thread were considered “False and Misleading” statements.

Having the highest respect for MiG and the service he performed for Prince Rupert, I fully support his personal decision to pull the thread rather than deal with or risk the fallout what ever that may have been.