amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·magicjack.com
 ·EarthLink
edit:
April 23rd, @02:18PM
| reply to en102
Re: Anti-competitive
said by en102  :I guess you could see it that way... Forced baseline competition... I.E "We won't allow competitors to have less restrictions than we impose on ourselves", forcing the playing field to the lowest common denominator. 'Real' comptition would allow the competition to make use of their purchased bandwidth, and not compete at the throttled level (ie. sounds more like the days of regulation to me). I agree. The anti-competitive angle may be that Bell is involved in both wholesale and retail. If they weren't involved in retail they'd have more incentive to provide higher bandwidth on an open market (without concern for the effect it would have on their retail activities).
But, a lot of businesses do that. Apple comes to mind. It's almost impossible to find deep discounts on iPods. If Bell is being anti-competitive for forcing its retail interests onto the wholesale market, I think *a lot* of businesses would be guilty of that.
If Bell has an exclusive on Canada's network infrastructure that would make it different than the Apple example. It would be a question of whether it should be a public utility (which could be worse).
Mark |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Exactly... when you run and sell both parts of the infrastructure, you're not tempted to make profit off one for the other... you want it all.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Corona, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to amigo_boy
it's not so much anti-competitive as ILLEGAL/a breach of contract, since TSI's SLA's with Bell have no mention of p2p throttling, therefore they (Bell) have no right whatsoever to touch TSI's traffic. Over in the US, that'd be akin to Verizon implementing a Sandvine-like throttling technology on my wholesale Gig-E or metro ethernet line, and telling me it's to fulfill 'reasonable network management'. |
|
