O Canada! > Canadian > TekSavvy > From Rocky: OUTRAGEOUS CRTC Descision

said by Abattoir:

In an unregulated, free market economy, of course not. This is not one of those situations. Bell has a natural monopoly over its competitors, and in our form of capitalism we do not like monopolies. Therefore, if they want to raise their rates, they must demonstrate that the proposed rates are justified for the proposed services.

People are seeing this as a giant rollback of service while jacking up prices, simultaneously reinforcing their monopolistic position. Of course people complain because their bills are going up. They still have to listen to citizens when they claim that Bell hasn't made its case sufficiently well.

said by justsomeguy8:

Maybe you are forgetting that these Bell Wholesalers fought the CRTC tooth and nail to be able to have wholesale access to Bell's copper network, they have to live with the consequences of this action. Typically when you force your way into getting access to something you dont own you have to put up with certain problems and what we are seeing is some of those problems. Nobody forced these companies to enter into this agreement with Bell! See Primus for an example of a company that took a different path.

said by PXA:

The network Bell is claiming sole ownership over was largely built with taxpayer dollars so I'm sorry but other companies damn well have the right to use it. And they're paying out the ass for access to it and being screwed over for the privilege.

And most competition doesn't have a massive US parent company backing them like Primus does. You think TekSavvy wouldn't build their own COs if they had the money? Sorry but when you need billions of dollars to have even a shred of a chance to compete with the established players who didn't have to pay a lot of the upfront costs in the first place, that is not a level playing field.

Bell was given their infrastructure by us and now they think they get to gouge consumers for access to it just to protect their obsolete TV delivery business model? I don't think so. This isn't about fairness, this is about them preventing people from utilizing more economical and intelligent video delivery solutions that are available online. This is about keeping you paying for overpriced channel packages that you use maybe a quarter of. You ever notice how all the companies that are fighting competition like this provide not only Internet service but TV service as well? Funny that.

Sorry but Bell has no high ground here. None.

said by justsomeguy8:

There is competition though, there is Rogers, Cogeco, Primus to name a few.

Maybe you are forgetting that these Bell Wholesalers fought the CRTC tooth and nail to be able to have wholesale access to Bell's copper network, they have to live with the consequences of this action. Typically when you force your way into getting access to something you dont own you have to put up with certain problems and what we are seeing is some of those problems. Nobody forced these companies to enter into this agreement with Bell! See Primus for an example of a company that took a different path.

said by salmonz:

If the infrastructure was giving by us, then we should take it back.

Perhaps the government should mandate creation of a "public utility" to take over the lines managed exclusively by Bell from your house to a facility that can be used by third party providers.

If there's a right-of-way that is exclusive, it should be taken away in favour of public access. It's illogical to have 5-10 companies hook up phone wires or fiber to your house and 5-10 companies digging up your yard, sidewalk, and roads, just to remain competitive.

Fact of the matter is, there is no competition, and I believe it's our right to take back what's rightfully ours, "respect", and start protecting consumers rights.

said by pnjunction:

I think more important than the monopoly status they were granted is the right-of-way Bell enjoys on public land.

We should charge them a 'reasonable' rate for it, say $1/metre, until we raise enough money to buy them finally bring sanity and non-greed-based solutions to the market.

said by DKS:

I believe they do pay an amount to the municipality. If the municipality owns the poles (as in a municipal electrical system) It's called "pole rental".

said by pnjunction:

I've heard of pole rental (they had some big issue in the press about it in the maritimes a while ago), but do you know how this works in bigger cities where everything is buried?

said by DKS:

Who owns the right of way? Aerial or buried, there are still costs unless the utility has an easement.

said by Abattoir:

Yes, but how easily can other companies even get access to this infrastructure? If municipalities will only allow Bell access to the poles, then you have a natural monopoly that needs to be countered. All this bull about encouraging competition is meaningless unless you fix the root causes first.

said by DKS:

Rogers and other cablecos have access. There are also technical and safety concerns. You can only put so many wires on a pole.

said by justsomeguy8:

There is competition though, there is Rogers, Cogeco, Primus to name a few.

said by pvanb:

So my options, if I don't like Bell, are:

1. Use a Bell wholesaler and get the same service for the same price
2. Switch to the cable company that serves my neighborhood (often city)
3. Pick up and move my whole household to an area or city served by another cable company?

That's competition? Seriously? Seriously?!

said by DKS:

Rogers and other cablecos have access. There are also technical and safety concerns. You can only put so many wires on a pole.

said by pvanb:

So my options, if I don't like Bell, are:

1. Use a Bell wholesaler and get the same service for the same price
2. Switch to the cable company that serves my neighborhood (often city)
3. Pick up and move my whole household to an area or city served by another cable company?

That's competition? Seriously? Seriously?!

said by justsomeguy8:

The problem is that he was incorrect in his statements, we did not "give" Bell their infrastructure. Bell has not been given "our tax dollars" to build their network.

Back when Canada needed a phone system, a monopoly was granted to them by the Canadian Government in order to allow them to build the phone system and then make back the money that it cost them to build it.

This was an absolute necessity as Canadians kinda needed a phone system.

Maybe you do, but I dont think that the monopoly and network that was built 100 years ago has anything to do with their current DSL access network of today. And I am not going to make any claim as to "owning it."