Quiane
join:2008-01-08
 ·Bell Sympatico
1 edit | Response from Competition Bureau
This is an email i just got from the CRTC......
basically we're fucked...(as far as they go)
Sorry if this is a repost
Thank you for the information you have provided concerning Bell Canada (“Bell”). The Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) has received your complaint that Bell has engaged in the control or “shaping” of traffic of independent Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) that provide service through wholesale access to Bell’s network. In your complaint, you have alleged that this is an anti-competitive practice on the part of Bell.
The Bureau is a law enforcement agency responsible for the administration and application of the Competition Act (the “Act”). It contributes to the prosperity of Canadians by protecting and promoting competitive markets and enabling informed consumer choice.
Your complaint has been reviewed by the Bureau’s Civil Matters Branch under the abuse of dominance provisions of the Act (section 79). In order for conduct to violate that section of the Act and for the Bureau to obtain an order to stop it, we must prove that:
* one or more persons substantially or completely control, throughout Canada or anywhere thereof, a class or species of business;
* that person or those persons have engaged in or are engaging in a practice of anti-competitive acts; and
* the practice has had, is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially in a market.
This framework, including its application to the denial or disruption of service in the telecommunications industry, is discussed in detail in the Bureau’s Draft Information Bulletin on the Abuse of Dominance Provisions in the Telecommunications Industry, available on the Bureau’s website at »www.competitionbureau.gc.ca.
At this point, Bell’s network management practices appear to be non-discriminatory, in that they are being applied at a network-wide level to both Bell’s own retail service and the service of all its wholesale customers, as opposed to the targeting of specific competitors. In this regard, it does not appear to the Bureau that Bell is currently engaging in a practice of anti-competitive acts in order to harm a competitor contrary to the Act. The extent that such network management practices may violate any contractual terms between Bell and its ISP customers is a private contractual issue between those parties. In addition, wholesale ADSL access services remain regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) subject to Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-17, Revised regulatory framework for wholesale services and definition of essential service, 3 March 2008.
Thank you again for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Paolin
Agent du droit de la concurrence | Direction générale des affaires civiles
Competition Law Officer | Civil Matters Branch
1-800-348-5358 | télécopieur / facsimile 819-997-0324 | ATS/TTY 1-800-642-3844
burconcurrence@bc-cb.gc.ca | compbureau@cb-bc.gc.ca
Bureau de la concurrence | 50, rue Victoria, Gatineau (Québec) K1A 0C9
Competition Bureau | 50 Victoria Street, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0C9
Gouvernement du Canada | Government of Canada
www.bureaudelaconcurrence.gc.ca | www.competitionbureau.gc.ca |
|
aver
join:2007-12-03
Kitchener, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: Response from CRTC
LOL I just got this email... They sent me an email with a reply that wasn't even my Original Email.. Then I got a message asking to recall the message :P I looked in the send-to field and there were about 7 - 10 names.
But ya Basically the competition bureau doesn't know what the word competition means. They claim because Bell's throttling network wide its not anti competitive (*bullshit). |
|
Quiane
join:2008-01-08 | reply to Quiane
yeah, i just got the recall email...maybe someone with brains read the response and got pissy? |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
2 edits | reply to Quiane
The competition bureau is not the same thing as the CRTC...
I actually fully agree with the competition bureau. They're telling you:
1) It's not anti-competitive because it's non-descriminatory (I agree)
2) The dispute is a private contractual matter (true)
3) On top of all that, the CRTC has jurisdiction over that, not the competition bureau (true).
I don't see a problem with their response. If anybody is going to resolve this mess, it's either the CRTC or the courts. |
|
eots
join:2003-02-04
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Quiane
I received the same form letter. The BS about "Bell’s network management practices appear to be non-discriminatory" proves they have not adequately investigated the issue. The fact that Bell implemented the throttling on the wholesale ISP's just days after the "Telecom Decision CRTC 2008-17" and the fact that Bell filed a court appeal against this decision is further evidence that Bells intent was anti-competitive. |
|
Arbalister
join:2007-11-24
St Catharines, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Quiane
Actually, these are *not* bad news. Reply to them. Make certain that they understand the the throttling was only applied to 3rd party ISP's after Bell started to bleed customers. Point out the paragraph from page 42 of the Bell stockholder report where they specifically state that if they traffic shape, they won't be able to compete with independants. Point out that Bell internal network back haul is the only game in town, ISP's have no other choice. And have them re-examine the case under section 61 of the Act. |
|
elpale1
@rogers.com | reply to Quiane
Re: Response from Competition Bureau
Why are all the officials in Canada retarded? Or just too rich to care? |
|
DSL_Ricer
Premium
join:2007-07-22
| reply to Guspaz
Re: Response from CRTC
said by Guspaz  :1) It's not anti-competitive because it's non-descriminatory (I agree) Just because it's non discriminatory, doesn't mean that it's not anti-competitive.
Assume there were a monopoly on ram. The ram company suddenly says, "All computers must have exactly 1 GB of ram". That would seriously hinder competition: you're preventing computer vendors from differentiating themselves on the basis of ram quantity, and creating artificial limitations to their system.
Bell is essentially putting a cap on the maximum line quality at peak hours. The competition can no longer provide a better packet service. |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
| A better analogy would be if the RAM company (and let's pretend they are the only RAM company) decided to stop selling 1GB DIMMs and instead only sell 512MB DIMMs. Let's also say that the RAM company sells their own PCs. It would be stupid, and it would suck, but it wouldn't be anti-competitive. Nobody could have a computer with more than a certain amount of RAM, but it'd be the same across the board.
People are arguing that Bell is preventing the wholesalers from differentiating their services from Sympaticos. This is no different than before the throttling. You couldn't say "Our service is different because we don't throttle" when nobody throttled. The wholesalers differentiated themselves in different ways (price, cap, quality of customer service, etc.) The same is true now. Every single way in which they differentiated themselves before November 2007 is still true today. |
|
justsometech
join:2003-05-08
h3h4h4
·Bell Sympatico
1 edit | reply to DSL_Ricer
Ok so they say we must prove that:
1)one or more persons substantially or completely control, throughout Canada or anywhere thereof, a class or species of business;
2) that person or those persons have engaged in or are engaging in a practice of anti-competitive acts; and
3) the practice has had, is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially in a market.
Bell Canada has a substantial control of DSL internet access through themselves and their wholesalers... i dont think they could argue that.. anyone want to play devils advocate?
Anti-competitive act... again just because they do it to everyone does not mean it is anti-competitive, infact it goes to prove that. Remove the competitive advantage that independant ISP's had and forcing your company policies on a smaller competition IS anti-competitive.
This is the most important part for them to understand.
And clearly this will affect the market with no little to no choice.
I think a new round of emails detailing the fact that because it is done to everyone DOES IN FACT MEAN it is anti-competitive. |
|
DSL_Ricer
Premium
join:2007-07-22
| said by justsometech :Remove the competitive advantage that independant ISP's had and forcing your company policies on a smaller competition IS anti-competitive. Be careful of your wording: it's not that they're removing a competitive advantage that's a problem, after all, it's a business. It's that they're doing it in a monopolistic way: by using their exclusive control of the lines to force everyone else to offer equally sub-standard packet service.
Had Bell decided to remove Sympatico's throttling, they would have removed that competitive advantage; but I don't think anyone here would be complaining.
|
|
avernar
join:2002-05-23
Mississauga, ON
clubs:
| reply to aver
said by aver :LOL I just got this email... They sent me an email with a reply that wasn't even my Original Email.. Then I got a message asking to recall the message :P I looked in the send-to field and there were about 7 - 10 names. I think they screwed up. Isn't it against some government privacy law to reveal those email addresses? That's probably the reason for the recall. |
|
ftp1020
join:2007-01-30
Canada | Not exactly confidence-inspiring that the Competition Bureau actually thinks an email can be "recalled". It's no wonder that their response indicates a complete misunderstanding of the information that was sent to them. |
|
tadyo
join:2006-11-19
Kanata, ON
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :A better analogy would be if the RAM company (and let's pretend they are the only RAM company) decided to stop selling 1GB DIMMs and instead only sell 512MB DIMMs. Let's also say that the RAM company sells their own PCs. It would be stupid, and it would suck, but it wouldn't be anti-competitive. Nobody could have a computer with more than a certain amount of RAM, but it'd be the same across the board. I think you didn't milk your own analogy for all its worth. Suppose the smaller company had just secured an exclusive contract with a competitive ram supplier. If a bigger company could change the rules they might impose the 1GB limit to thwart the opponent's advantage.
Bell apparently could not sustain an unthrottled service. TS did. |
|
avernar
join:2002-05-23
Mississauga, ON
clubs:
1 edit | reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :1) It's not anti-competitive because it's non-descriminatory (I agree) I think you, Bell and the competition bureau are the only ones to see it that way. 
Being non-discriminatory can be anti-competitive if you expressly did it to harm competitors, especially if the being non-discriminatory was not necessary.
Let's say you're a wholesaler of widgets and also a retailer. Your retail store can only sell 10 widgets a day because you don't have enough people in the store. Your competitor can sell 50 widgets a day because their store is fully staffed.
If you're factory just ran out of stock and can only build 20 widgets a day and you only sell 10 to your competitor and keep 10 for your store then you are non-discriminatory and not anti-competitive.
If you're factory can produce 100 widgets a day and you limit your competitor to 10 which is the same as your store then even though your being equal you are anti-competitive. You are hurting your competition!
If Bell is throttling because they really have core netowrk limits then I agree, it's not anti-competitive. If they're throttling because they're trying to stop people from switching away from Sympatico then they are being anti-competitive.
This is what the competition bureau needs to determine. |
|
avernar
join:2002-05-23
Mississauga, ON
clubs:
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :A better analogy would be if the RAM company (and let's pretend they are the only RAM company) decided to stop selling 1GB DIMMs and instead only sell 512MB DIMMs. Bad analogy. It's a matter of quantity not product specifications. See my example above but replace widgets with 1GB DIMMs.
You're analogy fits the ADSL1 vs ADSL2 problem where bell doesn't want to give the bigger DIMM to competitors just yet to give them a head start. |
|
Arbalister
join:2007-11-24
St Catharines, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :The competition bureau is not the same thing as the CRTC... I actually fully agree with the competition bureau. They're telling you: 1) It's not anti-competitive because it's non-descriminatory (I agree) 2) The dispute is a private contractual matter (true) 3) On top of all that, the CRTC has jurisdiction over that, not the competition bureau (true). I don't see a problem with their response. If anybody is going to resolve this mess, it's either the CRTC or the courts. I've shown, multiple times around here, that it *is* in fact anti-competetive, especially in light of their appeal of CRTC 2008-17. It contravenes at least section 61 of the Competition Act.
Basically, its no different then a car dealer suddenly deciding that you only get 3 free tires on your car, and when you walk out on him for being a fool, he spends the next night spiking one tire on every car in all the competing lots. It's uniform, so it must not be anti-competitive?
Um... |
|
Name96
join:2008-03-28
| reply to Quiane
Re: Response from Competition Bureau
I have an idea on how to reframe the issue to make it more relevant to the Competition Bureau. See »Re: CRTC ruling for Wholesale Telecommunications
--
Coridon Henshaw -=- »www.talisiorder.ca |
|
Arbalister
join:2007-11-24
St Catharines, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to justsometech
Re: Response from CRTC
said by justsometech :Bell Canada has a substantial control of DSL internet access through themselves and their wholesalers... i dont think they could argue that.. anyone want to play devils advocate? You're understating the case, here. The wholesalers are meaningless at this point in the argument. Bell has *complete* control of the DSL market, because *everyone* (all the wholesalers) have to buy the connection from their office to the enduser, from Bell. Period. That connection is something that only Bell can supply in the DSL market. Wholesalers can't. Rogers can't. Most of the local phone service customers can't - and they're dead too, if Bell wins a decision that lets them stop selling this service.
This is the net segment we're talking about...the actual, physical connected from you, to a DSLAM, then to an ISP. Once you get to the ISP it's a gravy and roses. Then there are choices. Not before. |
|
UT_CK
Premium
join:2008-01-28
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Quiane
Re: Response from Competition Bureau
My response to the Competition Bureau ...
Stephanie,
Bell has a dominant position and is leveraging it to undermine the competitiveness of smaller ISPs. By imposing these limitations they are hurting consumers and competitors alike.
I am the customer of an independent ISP, yet Bell is controlling said ISP and is doing it to all independent ISP's which makes them "dependent" not independent upon Bell's authoritarian abuse of their dominant position. This IS anti-competitive.
Do not send generic letters back to all the people who have sent you letters of concerns and are demanding action and that you exercise your mandate.
Not acting on this, will certainly raise the issue of a possible class action against the competition bureau for failing to protect the canadian public as well as those small businesses who depend on your proper evaluation of these wrongdoings.
The technical implications seem to be confusing your proper judgement. Please educate yourselves on what this is really about .. and the damage it is causing to net neutrality.
Regards,
CK |
|
