CRTC Rules Bell Can Squeeze Downloads

pparsons writes "Bell Canada Inc. will not have to suspend its practice of 'shaping' traffic on the Internet after a group of companies that resell access to Bell's network complained their customers were also being negatively affected. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission today released a decision that denied the Canadian Association of Internet Providers' request that Bell be ordered to cease its application of the practice to its wholesale customers."

Comments

Re:Tag this story

[cbiltcliffe]

I would think it would be. If you're selling something to someone, and you change what you're selling them, then you've just broken your contract.

It doesn't surprise me at all that Bell would do such a thing, though. I've got a Bell cellphone w/3 year contract. They've added charges left, right and center since I've got it. So I'm tied in, but they're not. I'm going to bitch like hell about this month's bill, though, as the extra charges alone are almost twice what my original contract was for.

Re:Abolish the CRTC

[mandelbr0t]

Agreed. I don't think they've made a single decision in favor of consumers in the last decade. TELUS has also been granted many favors by the CRTC, all of which reinforce their monopoly position out west.

Specifically, their requirement that all downstream DSL connections be associated with a local phone number (provided only by TELUS) is nothing more than a money grab that prevents me from having a single network connection into my house. I don't want to give TELUS money, but the CRTC's inaction in many such cases forces me to fund the big monopoly in addition to the local ISP that actually provides what I want at a reasonable price.

Re:Sounds to me

[multipartmixed]

> Of course not, but this isn't competition. Bell -owns- this infrastructure, and they
> shape all traffic going through their lines.

But, they don't. That infrastructure was built with significant tax dollars. In exchange for the build-out money, the government retained certain rights. Which is why there was a CRTC hearing at all.

> Somehow, I fail to see how any of that smacks of wanting to reduce competition.

Well, you've stated that you believe that the company owning the last mile (and not the company leasing access to it) should be the one deciding how it's used.

So, what's your proposed solution? That each ISP run their own last mile? Then, should the taxpayers also help each ISP run the last mile to their house? Or should Bell have to give back the money they got from us? If they have to give it back, at what interest rate should we have loaned it to them? And how do we handle 50 competing companies all running wire-willy nilly? What if some of those companies go bankrupt? Who handles the line maintenance? It's redundant, so Bell won't do it. Will the taxpayers pay for removal?