Or perhaps, why is the CRTC so anti-consumer?
The decision to allow companies such as Bell charge secondary Internet Service Providers (ISPs) excess fees is very detrimental to the future of internet service in Canada. They are giving large monopolistic companies such as Bell and Rogers the ability to render their competition completely ineffective and unable to compete with the larger brands.
It’s kind of like allowing McDonald’s to set the prices for all other fast food chains. It couldn’t be any more anti-competition. Of course, the big telecom companies don’t exactly want competition, they’re scared.
Bell built its empire on a service that, frankly, is becoming obsolete. The younger generations have no interest in landline telephones. The cell phone market has been cracked open with new competitors such as Wind and Public Mobile. People are turning away from traditional tv services such as cable and satellite, in favour of convenient on-demand products such as NetFlix.
It seems that they are feeling some kind of a pinch. Bell apparently had a little over a five percent drop in profit over the third quarter last year. Rogers suffered from a twenty-four percent drop.
So why not remove two competitors with one swoop? Make alternative ISPs an unsavory choice and continually reduce service by reducing so-called bandwidth caps, limiting tv internet options.
On the positive side, it seems like this decision will not stand. NDP critic Charlie Angus spoke out first, the Liberal party fell in line and now Stephen Harper is tweeting that he was “concerned” over the CRTC decision. Perhaps the mess will be cleaned up.
The more disturbing aspect is there is now a theme in the CRTC, to be a corporate protectionist agency. They claim that they “regulate and supervise” but with this decision and their previous decision of trying to prevent Wind Mobile from entering the market, it seems the only thing they are interested in supervising is higher profits for the large telcos.



