More articles and opinions following yesterday’s news:
SaveOurNet.ca: Tell the CRTC what you think of their decision (site no longer active)
“The CRTC sided with Big Telecom and failed online consumers. The CRTC has announced that it will not force Bell Canada to stop its controversial Internet throttling practices. It is more important than ever for Canadians to speak up.”
SaveOurNet.ca: NDP MP Charlie Angus asks: Who will protect consumers from net throttling? (site no longer active)
“‘Whether it’s throttling the internet, imposing unfair text message fees or price gouging on cell-phone rates, it seems Canadian telcos can count on the backing of this government,’ Angus said. ‘CRTC is applying outdated rules that this government has refused to change, leaving the average consumer and emerging business models at the mercy of the Telecom Giants.'”
Mediacaster Magazine: CRTC Fails Online Consumers, Say Net Neutrality Advocates
“For a decade now, the CRTC has mandated that Bell allow third-party companies to rent its network, as a way to encourage more competition and choice in Canada’s Internet services market. By allowing Bell to throttle its competitors, critics say the CRTC is failing to support competition and fair market prices for Canadian consumers and businesses.”
Marketing Magazine: CRTC takes Bell’s side in web traffic complaint
“Internet giant Google sided with CAIP, saying the Internet must remain open and accessible and blamed Bell for failing to expand its network to accommodate all users . . . But the CRTC said Bell had demonstrated that the growing popularity of online video can lead to congestion on the network. And it said Bell was not favouring its own retail customers over the independent users.”
Michael Geist’s Blog: The Meaning of the CRTC Decision
Quotes from Mirko Bibic, Chief Regulatory Officer, Bell and Len Katz, Vice-Chair, CRTC.
(Links updated November 2013)
Destination: Journey 
Also found:
Adequacy of Reasons in CRTC Throttling Decision?
http://tinyurl.com/6nl5jh
“A question that may arise about the CRTC decision is whether – irrespective of the conclusions – it meets the test of “adequacy” of the reasons. Despite its 80 paragraphs, the decision is arguably rather short on reasoning with respect to some of its main and most controversial conclusions.”