Comment faire le signe arobase sur mac

See More Details. Instructions Protocol may be improved.

Please wait

This gene encodes an enzyme involved in catalyzing the conversion of angiotensin I into a physiologically active peptide angiotensin II. Angiotensin II is a potent vasopressor and aldosterone-stimulating peptide that controls blood pressure and fluid-electrolyte balance. This enzyme plays a key role in the renin-angiotensin system. Many studies have associated the presence or absence of a bp Alu repeat element in this gene with the levels of circulating enzyme or cardiovascular pathophysiologies. Two most abundant alternatively spliced variants of this gene encode two isozymes - the somatic form and the testicular form that are equally active.

Multiple additional alternatively spliced variants have been identified but their full length nature has not been determined. Intra-assay Precision Precision within an assay: Three samples of known concentration were tested twenty times on one plate to assess. To assess the linearity of the assay, samples were spiked with high concentrations of mouse ACE in various matrices and diluted with the Sample Diluent to produce samples with values within the dynamic range of the assay. The recovery of mouse ACE spiked to levels throughout the range of the assay in various matrices was evaluated.

Samples were diluted prior to assay as directed in the Sample Preparation section. These standard curves are provided for demonstration only. A standard curve should be generated for each set of samples assayed. Si vous pouviez donner votre avis sur Discuter: Je voudrais fixer un texte en face d'une image. C'est ici: Sinon banane, c'est pas affectif? Ah, non? I want to get a permission to run a bot in the french wikipedia. Merci beaucoup. I got a bot status for Chobot. Now it runs. Il y faut un vote, que je sache Actuellement je consulte les modifications recentes avec 30 minutes de retard.

Aidez moi!! Avez-vous des astuces? Pourquoi n'y a t-il pas un forum mile milions de mille sabords!

Avec une recherche, des tris par date, par auteur Aide-toi et le ciel t'aidera. En plus je pose la question sur Wikipedia: Il m'a dit un jour: Personne non plus sait le typographier, alors, bon, apprenons le Turc, le Japonais etc. En plus dans ce cas, il faut fournir la loupe avec! Cependant, il se pourrait? Redirect depuis nom incorrect vers nom correct.

En gros, je suis pour des titres accessible et des articles rigoureux. Et le lecteur va allez voir ailleurs quelque chose de plus accessible.

Dans ce cas, je ne vois pas pourquoi on refuserait les diacritiques provenant d'autres langues. Pour ceux que ca choquerait, je n'ai pas fait d'arret cardiaque en voyant ce i Pour finir, je m'interroge sur un point: Sur l'article russe, ru: Mais je ne suis pas pour cette solution. Alors en mettant une mention du style "provient de commentcamarche.

Qu'en pensez vous? Sinon, existe-t-il de telles listes ailleurs? Personne n'approuve, donc je continue Si personne ne veut le faire, je vais tout simplement tout effacer et le contenu sera perdu, on ne va pas conserver du contenu sous copyright Voir New vote on language subdomains. Perso, je ne vois pas bien pourquoi il y a un tel troll sur ce sujet. A titre d'exemple, je chechais des informations sur la ville de Tokyo. Nic dit: T'es un rapide. Au passage, il ne me semble pas avoir indiquer que je voulais que l'on utilise la graphie avec le i en chef.

Pour ce qui est du point-sur-le-I.. Pour la restructuration, JD a dit: Bonjour ma question n'es peut-etre pas a poser ici mais je trouve pas dans les menus d'aide. Est-ce possible et si oui, comment? Personnaliser monobook. Il n'y a pas de liste des id, mais il suffit de regarder dans le code source d'une page pour trouver celui qui est utile.

Minimum requis: Il est trop facile de modifier un article - sans faire attention! Encore mille excuses! Aladdin Paris. Pourtant, le travail dans ce domaine ne manque pas:. Merci d'avance. Teofilo, qu'entends-tu par: Aucune de ces 2 fonctions ne focntionnent sur mon site. Toutes les illustrations il y en avait beaucoup Au voleur!!! Il y a eu une panne de courant sur les serveurs en Floride. L'eau contient principalement de l'H 2 O, mais est bien plus que de l'H 2 O.

Et alors? H20 n'est pas la formule correcte: Si tu pouvais encore, pourquoi pas, mais ce n'est pas possible. Cette remarque n'apporte rien de plus Merci de ton soutient: Manu par exemple Aspirine redirige vers acide acetylsalicylique, qui est le nom officiel Certains contributeurs auraient-ils perdu le sens de l'humour?

• flow game app for mac.
• Python et les décorateurs!
• acrobat pro 11 serial mac?

Sur ce, amusez-vous bien On peut toujours piocher dedans, la liste: Mais j'ai beau chercher, j'ai quelques soucis:. Et au fait ou doit-on reporter les bogues? Bref, la liste est encore inconnue, mais devrait se clarifier la semaine prochaine. La raison en est simple: Car les deux garantirait l'accession d'Erik au board.

Donc vers l'agrandissement du board et la suppression des membres quasi-factices. C'est le soutien dont parle Nezumi. Je ne te crois pas quand tu dis que les relations d'Eloquence avec Angela motivent ton opposition. Sur les perspectives: Bon chance! Dans cette optique Il existe des dizaines de personnes qui participent au quotidien, et sont inclues parmi les discussions, au moins celles qui les concernent directement. Les grants par Danny. Les rapports financiers par Mav. Quarto implique fortement Sj. Erik s'active sur notre avenir.

Je pourrais en citer beaucoup d'autres Je ne fais que ce avec quoi je suis confortable. Mais sur le fond Ulysse Correia. Mediawiki me surprendra toujours! However, we believe that they should be just that; options.

Microsoft Community - Super Fresh

And we believe that any of the options proposed by the CRTC Code could be employed to fulfil this obligation. This does not exist, to our knowledge, anywhere else in the world. They are requirements that limit a consumer's option. And while consumers have clearly indicated an appetite for usage monitoring and management services, we submit that a suite of mandatory notifications and caps is not, and I quote, "efficient and proportionate to their purpose", and interfere in the operation of a competitive market forces.

Plus, anyone who wants to ensure that they do not exceed a given level of spending on wireless services has the option today through pre-paid service. We join consumer advocacy groups in supporting the majority of the Commission's proposed Code provisions. We are seeking a Code that balances market forces and regulation for the greatest benefit of all consumers. With a small number of amendments and clarification, the Commission will have achieved this balance through a Code that provides the tools and options that consumers demand and that provides flexibility for service providers to respond to new innovations and new business models.

Jim, Kurt, Caitlin and I will be more than pleased to answer any of your questions that you would have at this time. Good morning. And I note it's just morning, so I'm going to begin just asking a few questions of clarification and then perhaps, if the Chair allows, we'll break for lunch and continue after. And if I understand what you have just noted, you support the proposed code that was placed out for comment, with the exception of issues related to notification, unlocking, changes to contracts, and there was a fourth, I think.

The other thing I just want to clarify, having gone through your comments here, you noted that you were aligned with PIAC on many elements of the Code and you included in that, "Service providers will immediately cease billing for mobile premium services at a consumer's request. This morning we heard PIAC saying that they feel it's the responsibility of the service provider to prove consent.

Do you support PIAC's position on that matter? We believe that the consumer also has responsibility as the provider, and this is a mutual contract, this is a mutual agreement for premium services. And consumers that decide that they want a service, they pay the carrier for that service. And if they say I don't want the service, they did not provide the service, there is a transaction, there is a record of transaction that the carrier can provide.

The carrier have a copy of that transaction and can provide that copy of transaction. Just beginning on the Code itself, the Code is talking about fixed and monthly pre-paid and post-paid. And from your comments here, I take it that you believe that's an exhaustive list of all mobile service options available to customers today? That would cover all arrangements in the marketplace today? What about pay in advance monthly services? Where do you see those as fitting? Do you see those as pre-paid services or do you see those as monthly services?

If I -- could you repeat the question just to make sure I've got it? It was pre-paid monthly services you spoke about? I think anything pay-in-advance would fall under our recommendations pertaining to pre-paid. And just clarify for me one more time, if you could, your recommendation regarding pre-paid. We've got a number of areas where we think the Code would apply in pre-paid, in a pre-paid scenario, and a number of cases where it wouldn't.

It's quite a detailed chart. I might ask Kurt to go into it in more detail; he's done a lot of work on this. But by and large we think -- and we've seen this in every province that's gone down this road. Every province starts their process by saying, well, we assume everything we do will apply to both pre-paid and post-paid, and there's always a process of going through clause by clause and saying, for example, a requirement that advertising contain a -- or display a minimum monthly balance, it doesn't apply in a pre-paid scenario.

That's a post-paid rule. It's designed to -- for post-paid arrangements. And can you just confirm that that listing that you have, and you'll file it in the past, is based on the premise that consumers of pre-paid services deserve equivalent rights and protections as post-paid customers.

So your listing will only exclude where there is not -- where it's simply not applicable due to the nature of a post-paid service? And could you just -- I'm sorry, would you just say to me again your example as it relates to advertising. Well, I believe the Commission's Code creates, and this is just one example, a requirement that monthly advertising display a minimum monthly cost for service. A minimum monthly cost in a pre-paid scenario is moot. You've paid upfront, this is the amount of service that you can use.

It's not going to be billed later on a monthly basis or any other, you've pre-paid it. If I may, a lot of the pre-paid models are not on a monthly basis at all. I mean, you could be paying for a term that's six months in however many minutes. So you can't determine what a minimum monthly cost would be in that scenario. So I would invite you, when you come back with this, to think clearly about the monthly pay-in-advance models which in fact do have a minimum monthly cost and add-ons to that that you would purchase on a monthly basis, as well as to consider really how -- you know, how this Code could apply to all the different arrangements that are out there.

We will. If I can just add as well we want to make sure the consumers benefit from the choices they have now and we'd hate to see anything proposed in the Code that would eliminate choices for consumers or make the choice for the consumer. I think it's important to highlight the distinction between providing tools and information for consumers for them to make choices versus having rules and regulations that make the choice for them. Yes, I understand and I think that's the benefit of having you provide us that information.

Once again, looking at the different arrangements because some of the pay-in-advance models that are out there right now really don't look that much different than a month-to-month post-paid arrangement. So I don't think we want to limit their protections, right? I mean, if we lump pre-paid as one simple grouping of services, I'm not sure that that really works with what's in the market today and can evolve. You know, you've said yourself and we're very cognizant of the notion that we don't want to limit through this more than necessary what could either be available in the market today or develop over time.

Having said that, neither do we want to limit someone's rights and protections simply by looking at things at too high of a level. And if I can add, and we'll be more than happy to provide the information, it reflects the fact that consumers do have a lot of choices already and they can take a post-paid option, they can take a pre-paid option depending on what they want, and they can set limits themselves.

We talk about certain camps, and I'm sure the questions will come up, but, as I mentioned in my remarks, a consumer that is concerned by how much they will pay can prepay in advance to limit their -- themselves, and we think all those options are important to have and we wouldn't want to see anything that would limit those options. So we'll be happy to provide the comparison listing. And I'm not just suggesting that you can pay upfront and get the fixed term price but at a different price than with the device. Are those options available today? Maybe to help me at some point you could tell me where those options exist.

Well, I think our carrier members will be able to provide the details as to what options they provide. And our -- obviously in our association different members offer different options, different programs, different plans, and they'll be able to provide the details of that. Fair enough. And as we go through these questions, at any time where the question is better answered by the particular members, as you know, they're all coming before us, so we'll just -- I don't want to put you in a situation where you're having to answer where your members are not in alignment on any issue, so How you make the distinction between a device subsidy and an economic incentive, and whether that distinction actually is significant in this Code as we're looking at it.

We actually -- it would -- I guess that -- the answer to that would be it would depend on what would come out of this Code. As it's drafted here, it pretty much pertains to the -- it is just the device subsidy. Using economic incentive wouldn't -- would have allowed for some kind of marketplace where you could offer a service incentive that would be part of a -- used in some kind of termination formula, but as it stands now that's -- it looks -- that's not really what we're proposing anyway. So we think the term "device subsidy" is more straightforward. And if that is the only incentive that could ever be required to be paid back, then that's what would -- we would use.

If I can add to that. Some carriers will provide different incentives. Like, it will be on a subsidy to the device. You sign up now, you may get three months of free voicemail. You may get some other advantage. You can get a 50 or 75 dollar voucher for peripherals or accessories for your phone and that is an economic advantage that is provided to the customer that is not directly related to the device subsidy. However, when it comes time to calculate the early termination fee, we understand and we support a formula that is based on the subsidy of the device.

That was important to me to understand because it very -- it is quite confusing and, you're right, there's all kinds of incentives, whether you provide, you know, free activation or six months of data for half price or whatever it is. So that in here is nothing that a consumer would ever have any responsibility as per your proposal to pay back in any way?

The -- we accept that the early termination fee would be calculated on the subsidy of the handset, while understanding that there is a difference between the two. I'm going to ask this to your members but I'll ask you as well. It turns out, when I was just looking at some of the plans offered by some of your members, they're very, very complex in how they define their economic incentives.

You know, complex by design, I would suggest, but So there's a device savings recovery fee. There's an additional device savings recovery fee. You have others who have taken the difference between the device total cost from payment and separate it into a device fee -- or a device credit, a data credit, and agreement rebate. So just to be clear, when we're talking about the economic incentive that's discussed within this, it is the entire difference between the upfront cost of a device and what the customer has paid?

Is that right? Regardless of whether they break that subsidy into three or four or 10 different elements when they're talking to the customer? We're talking about the whole amount and that's it? That the whole amount is the device subsidy? Is that -- that's the question? Just for clarification, the -- we'll take a break now, but the additional information that you offered in answer to provide, we'd want that for the 22nd of February.

That'll be the practice generally for those listening and those in the room. So that people making comments, this is for additional undertakings, which I take it that was the nature of that discussion with Commissioner Molnar, should be provided by the 22nd of February and not on the 1st of March because the 1st of March people should be able to comment on the full record. So additional information should be provided by the 22nd of February. And if for some reason anyone in the room at one point is asked to provide undertakings that they can't meet the 22nd of February, please you'll have to make your case, but we're going to assume that's the default date.

Is that okay? Well, without anticipating exactly what will be in the Code, I'm of the belief that a national Code would meet those requirements, that it would be as good or better. That in itself makes it better. It was mentioned here today before; it's been mentioned on other occasions every layer of regulation you add adds cost. And eventually that cost is paid by someone and that someone usually ends up being the consumer.

Python et les décorateurs — Gilles Fabio

And so we need to look at what it may be. But it may be some of the options put forward in the draft Code today. Do you see anything in the options in front of us today that would lead you to believe that this Code wouldn't be equivalent or of a greater standard than the provincial legislations? Not fundamentally, no. There may be some minor differences, keeping in mind that some provinces and the legislation that's been adopted and existing in certain provinces have some differences among themselves. That's why we think having a national Code is a better solution.

Do you have any estimates of what those costs are? Well, again, depending on exactly what is adopted, our carriers that actually experience this through their own business can give you more details of the costs they've had to pay to meet regulations and legislation in different provinces.

Wikipédia:Le Bistro/mai 2005

They need to change how they operate and that can be different from one province to the next and that simply adds complexity and costs. Because I think it's very important this element. Certainly, it is to your industry. Well, they can be different and we can only look at what's been done in provincial legislation already.

But we cannot anticipate what will come in the future. You know what? Politically this would be very popular. Let's adopt a different code with different rules and try to force it on the industry and consumers because they see things differently. Which regulation applies? Which legislation applies? And that can be different. That gives it the fact of life that we need to make sure that we continue to adapt and meet the needs of consumers and not create new burden on the industry that prevents innovation.

We are going to measure the efficiency and the effectiveness of this Code and if there is a need to change it, we will" for us that is by far a better solution than trying to coexist with current and future provincial legislation. And under that basis, that this is a Code designed to improve customer satisfaction and provide the customer with greater rights and protections and that it is a Code that will be modified as needs arise, do you believe that minimizes your future concern?

As long as we keep this up and address the needs of the industry, the potential that a province may step in. So there is no guessing. There is no trying to explain to a consumer when they show up at the kiosk, "Well, this is your provincial code. Sometimes it may not be a question of which one is better. They may just be different. And so a consumer will decide, well, for me I want this one. I think it's important under the Constitution. Responsibilities have been outlined for the federal government versus responsibilities outlined to provincial government that it is the CRTC's -- not only the option but I believe it's the duty of the CRTC to occupy this space now.

So if we're going to occupy the space we have to fully address the issues. So here is an issue that touches on provincial legislation and that's what some provinces would say are gift cards, the pre-paid cards and the expiry of those cards. As you know, a lot of comments have been put forward suggesting that prepaid cards should not be allowed to expire. Absolutely, and we're glad you're raising that question. That question was raised in the different provinces where they did adopt legislation. But the service once it is activated then there is a period of time for which you have the service.

There is no expiry date on that. Once you activate and you initiate that service you have so many minutes, so many texts, so much data and a period of time. If you go and rent a car for the weekend and they tell you when you rent the car, "You have the car for 1, kilometres and three days, Friday, Saturday and Sunday" there is an -- it expires at the end of Sunday and you need to bring the car back.

Sometimes what is mistaken is that people simply buy minutes or texts or data. They actually buy that and they buy access to the network for a period of time. That's the expiration date that is on the card. It's not when you activate it. It's once it's activated it's there for a period of time. Well, we've had this discussion province by province, one by one. It's important to note that as every province has started their process they have all started from the premise that these prepaid minutes should not expire. And as they've all looked at the realities, rather than the perceptions of the business model, when they've looked at the realities, they've all concluded that it would be inappropriate to try to require those prepaid accounts delivered through prepaid cards to remain open for ever.

Like Bernard said, if I rent a car, whether I'm behind the wheel with the engine running or whether it's in my driveway, I have access to that car for three days. The card just provides the terms and conditions, the pin number and the phone number. Often there's no card at all, some companies just give you a cash register receipt with the information on it. Outside of the issue of the phone numbers, are there other impacts on the business model for prepaid that would be impacted if we were to address the expiry date?

Well, you have the impact of the liability must be carried and it's a fundamental change to the business model because the service that is purchased is not just the voice minutes or the number of texts or the data, it is in fact the access to the network. So, I activate my card, my device is turned on, I don't receive a call, but I know if my son or my daughter wanted to reach me because they would be in trouble, they could; so the fact that they don't call indicates that I have the service but it's not registered its minutes or text or data, they just didn't call, but if they wanted to call they could.

And you just touched on that if there's anything that could be done because we accept -- and I do accept that, you know, a prepaid card is the cost of access for a period of time as well as some kind of a usage bucket. There's application of the Code potentially. Are there other things that you can do as an industry to address this issue? Well, the whole issue of making sure consumers have the tools and the information they need to make the choices that they want to make and that they understand that the choice that they're making is actually the one that's being made, we fully support, and if there's something specific with regards to this part of the business model, making sure that it's clear on the document that they get or rolled into those ideas, but I think that is very different than trying to modify or change the business model that exists.

I'm going to move on to the issue of the content of the wireless Code, clarity of the contract terms and conditions. Is there more than necessary, something missing, where are we on that? Yeah, we do think that's a useful tool. We think that people should know what they're signing up for before they sign up for it. We think that's reasonable and would be very helpful and would, you know, help avoid a lot of confusion. We don't think every subscriber wants to be taken through this, we think some know better what their rights are and they understand it.

So, I don't think it should be all encompassing. So, as simple as possible would be good, but again, we don't think there should be a requirement on every carrier and every transaction. Can you be more specific? If you think that it doesn't need to be all of this, are there certain things within the proposed personal information summary that you think, besides the name, are either unnecessary or a problem of some sort to your industry to provide to customers? I don't -- not necessarily that it would be a problem, I just don't know that every consumer wants to be taken through all of this information.

And the reason is because consumer's -- optional, not for the consumer, but I think you said consumer or carrier. So, it would be optional for the carrier whether or not they wanted to provide this information to a customer, a potential customer, because this is provided before. Well, we support every consumer getting this information before they sign up and we stand for that, and we think the carriers have the flexibility to do that the way they want and the consumers can decide if they're getting information presented to them in the way they like, but to prescribe a fixed summary such as this one, we don't think that's necessary.

The consumer has -- we want to make sure the consumer has the right to get that information, absolutely. You may have gone in to buy a phone for your daughter and a month later you go in to buy a phone for your son, you ask the same salesperson, you have the same kiosk, are the conditions the same as last month? Yeah, it's the same package. You don't necessarily want to spend another 15 minutes going through the same situation that you went through a month before, you're just happy to proceed, buy the phone, activate the phone, use the phone and go on with your life.

So, you're not concerned -- and I heard you, so sometimes a consumer may not be interested in this information. The problem is, who gets to choose? It is the consumer's right, we would suggest, to have this information to make an informed choice, so it would be the consumer's right to choose whether they're looking for information. Well, I've looked, but I honest -- I can tell you right now, I can't understand them. And the -- so, the answer to your question is one hundred percent yes, the consumer wants this information, the consumer has access to this information.

You made the point that a customer's rights to make changes to the contract should also be part of this Code. You know, in a way it is -- you could consider it somewhat semantics, it's a wording choice and a calculative one, an intentional one. We had proposed a taxonomy where a fixed term service could not be changed during the fixed term and a monthly term service could be changed with 30 days notice because it was on a month-to-month basis based on the right that with that monthly service the consumer, they have not committed to take that for a certain period of time at a certain price and they're able to cancel it entirely.

They could go from a text-a-month plan to a text-a-month plan if they so choose. If you signed up for a voice and data plan and after three months you called in and said, I want to add a text package on month-to-month, that again would fall under the same window. It could be additional roaming packages, different options that the consumer decides to take or not take. In essence, it's also the difference between what are fixed elements of the contract and what are optional elements of the contract.

Your Code proposes that contract changes that are positive or neutral in nature could be changed at any time and that the WSP may notify the consumer. Do you still agree with that proposal? For instance, if you're signed up for -- let's give an example. If the consumer decides, no, they want to pay more, well A good example are data caps, which before smartphones hit the 3G and 4G level they were typically smaller, and with devices that consumer more bandwidth they have tended to go up and they have tended to go up even for people who had signed up for smaller plans.

So now the person is paying the same amount but they have a higher data cap. We think that should be permitted within the contract. I'm glad you used the example of data caps because staff have provided me an example of data caps that I want you to consider. Assume customers are subscribed to a grandfathered 1-gigabyte data plan with tethering.

The carrier now offers an unlimited data plan at the same price as the grandfathered plan but without tethering included. Customers that don't use tethering would consider the new plan to be a positive change while customers that use tethering would consider the new plan to be a negative change. How would they know if this is a positive or negative change? In that specific example, there is more than one thing that is changing. It's not just the cap that is changing but the fact that you can tether or not.

So that is a significant change that, as you mentioned, can go either way. It's not just increasing the cap. We're saying those that can't tether, you now can do it.

Plateformes d'assistance

You're changing two things and that's why I think the example is not a simple one. I think that's the nature of this service, it's not simple. It's complex. I agree with you and I think the other thing is it is more complex now than it was before and one thing I did not mention earlier but I think it's important noticing -- taking note of, I should say, is the fact that the types of services that Canadians have access to today are fundamentally different than what they were five years ago, 10 years ago or 20 years ago, and I'm sure many of us remember that first phone we had.

There was no voicemail, there was no -- that's it. There was no text, there was no data. And so the devices have changed. Even though we still call them mobile phones, they're very different than what was sold years ago. Now, I'm not suggesting that we adopt a Code and regulation that prevents innovation and prevents different packages. Let's just make sure the consumers have the information they need when they make those choices. Yes, fair enough. I'm off topic here for a little bit but I just want to make the pitch that, as you pointed out, it's rapidly evolving, there's new uses, new applications, and so where the industry seeks to make it more complex than necessary, it makes it harder for customers.

There may have been circumstances where things were not as good as they should have been and I think we recognize that. And I can tell you from talking and listening to our members, they have been talking and listening to their consumers as well and they know that they need to change how they do certain things, and they have, and that's part of the evolution as well.

People are learning that. I think one thing needs to be said. Members, our members and people that provide these services want to keep their customers happy, period. They do and they want to make sure they are informed because the last thing they want is to lose a consumer to a competitor and they compete ferociously for market share. Ultimately, what serves the consumer best is a competitive marketplace with some regulation, as we're proposing, to make sure consumers have the information.

That's what will serve consumers best from coast to coast. We've seen some of those changes and I think you can expect more changes to come. As I mentioned, I was off topic there, but I'll get back on topic now. Well, they can change that service. Our Code dealt very specifically with the individual services because there's obviously -- you can talk about the contract, but really the contract is all of the individual services and those can often be subject to different terms and possibly different promotions and different lengths, and particularly, you know, the difference between fixed and monthly, and monthly being a service where the customer has the flexibility to alter it or drop it, and that's -- again, to go back to your question earlier about our language, it was more than just, I guess, semantics because it's embedding that principle in the Code, that if the customer can't change it, then the carrier cannot change it.

I mean that was the principle that our Code was based on. But your Code is based on the notion that there is a contract, there is an arrangement whereby certain of the components, the service elements, will be provided on a fixed-term basis, certain of the service elements may be provided on a monthly basis, but it's all part of the same service arrangement.

So if you're changing this price on 30 days notice and the customer is not happy with the price and they want to go somewhere else, they can't. Well, under this Code, they would be because they could pay out the remaining device subsidy and they could exercise that right to cancel at that time. You could say, I might not want voicemail next year, I might not want it three months from now, I might only need it on a minimal basis, same with a text plan or anything like that.

Here's some things I may want to change. I don't know if I need texts a month. I might want to alter that service. If you decide you don't want an optional service from the outset for the duration of the contract but you only want the option to add it on on a go-forward basis from month to month or for three months at a time, then those options are available to consumers as well. They can cancel, pay off the handset subsidy, move on. They can tell the provider: You know, I don't like your service any more, here is the handset subsidy, this is how much I owe, I'm leaving.

There is no additional penalty, there is no complication, there is no -- it doesn't take three hours to calculate how much it is, you pay what you use, you pay the handset subsidy and you move on. So we support that. It's clear. The same when we talk about -- I'm sorry to go off track a little bit, when we talk about the length of contract. If a customer can decide after two years, "I'm out of here", does it really matter if they sign for three, two or one? They can leave at any time.

Thank you for that. I understand what you're saying, if you're not happy with your service provider it may be easier to move, but the best would be to have a good relationship with your service provider. What is the justification for saying these prices can be changed at any time without notice?

They are services used by the customer of the service provider under which there is a contract, so how is it they can be changed without notice? Again, it would go to whether or not there was an agreement in place when you signed the contract that that would be the price of that service for the three years or the two years or whatever. That's the principle. It's only charging that price to its customers and it will be -- you know, those customers will be made aware after they have used it.

Your point is well taken on the notification. And perhaps that is a section that we need to review. Moving on to the issue of contract cancellation, you have just mentioned that you support the option where the full cancellation fee, the entire cancellation fee is the cost of any outstanding device subsidy; correct? So if there is no device subsidy, no cancellation fee? Sorry, not entirely. So explain to me why that's fair?

If I have been under contract, I have paid my device, or if I have paid the device upfront and chose to go into a contract, why should I pay a fee that those who had the industry subsidize the device not pay? Well, the principle behind it being that that would better incent service providers to offer you a promotion that was for a fixed duration in exchange for knowing that they would have your business for a certain amount of time, but the extent of that, it's different than the device subsidy that raises a question. They will have made an informed decision.

They will have made an informed decision to sign up for a period of time. I'm thinking for example of customers who have experienced significant service problems for example or they are terminating for a cause, if you will, or do you believe that should apply in all circumstances? Well, outside the Code there are other ways that consumers can protect their rights and if, for instance, they sign up for a service and it's not what they expect and they don't get satisfaction from a Code, courts are still there to provide relief, if they need it.