|
|
|
|
|
by Swannie
5612 days ago
|
|
Anti-competitive, agreed, mostly (see next point). Net Neutrality, whole other debate. Should Bell be forced to allow equivalent pricing to a competitor to operate the same level of service? Maybe (probably). The pivotal argument in terms of anti-competition, to my view, is: Could someone else build out the infrastructure to allow them to compete? Yes, they could install a CDN close to the DSLAMs, and create their own backhaul. Are Bell making the cost of doing this prohibitively expensive? I don't know the answer to that. EDIT: OK, it appears they are, by not allowing 3rd parties to their fibre backhaul. That really stinks. Bell being allowed to set it's own pricing on the backhaul - exchange to ISP PoP? It's reasonable, the way the regulator let it be implemented? Despicable. |
|
I'm going to argue yes to the first point and no to the second. The internet is absolutely necessary to be competitive. As prices continue to ratchet upwards, even as the number of legitimate uses for large amounts of bandwidth rise, it is fast becoming increasingly more unaffordable.
With those two criteria met, I would say it's time to regulate access to the internet. In particular, I would like to see the last mile and backhaul infrastructure owned independently of any content business and available to any reseller at the same wholesale rates. Content and infrastructure MUST be separated if we are to effectively create fair pricing conditions and net neutrality.