Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

Bell Wants to Dump Third-Party ISP's Entirely 227

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the taking-their-cable-and-going-home dept.
phorm writes "Not only is Bell interfering with third-party traffic, but — according to CBC — they want third-party ISP and phone carriers off their network entirely. Bell is lobbying to have lease-conditions on their networks removed, stating that enough competition exists that they should not longer be required to lease infrastructure to third-parties. Perhaps throttling is just the beginning?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bell Wants to Dump Third-Party ISP's Entirely More

Bell Wants to Dump Third-Party ISP's Entirely

Comments Filter:
  • to the Sherman Anti Trust Act in Canada? Not that it has helped much in the US lately.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nebaz ( 453974 )
      I hit submit too soon. I meant to ask "Is there any equlvalent to the Sherman Anti Trust act?"

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by VickiM ( 920888 )
      I'd be surprised if the Bells in the USA didn't start making this same argument here soon. After all, they have to compete with cable and satellite. Why would anyone need more choices than that?
      • Yeah right; america has always been insane on government regulation of telecoms. Yeah they get away with all sorts of abuse, but they do not own their own networks; they operate completely at the mercy of congress and the FCC, and there's no way that they'll let them just cancel the terms of their lease contracts that they don't like.

        • Re:As an American, I would like to know (Score:5, Insightful)

          by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Friday April 04, 2008 @04:10PM (#22967988) Journal
          I know, government regulation of telecoms is so crazy considering that all we taxpayers have done is pay for much of the infrastructure, granted them monopolies, and gave up our property for their right of way. I mean, we should just cancel all our deals with them and let them do whatever they like.

          I'd love to see a couple dozen telephone lines coming to my house so I can lease from the company I like, rather than having only one. And I'd also like a couple dozen sewer lines, water lines, and road networks I can choose from, too. As well as competing fire departments, police departments, and sanitation.

          I mean, why should I pay for garbage removal when I have no sense of smell. My property, my rules. If I don't want to pay for fire protection, I shouldn't have to. If my house burns down, who else could that possibly hurt?

          All these government regulations of private industry do nothing but hurt us. Competition will always ensure we have the best possible services available, and there is nothing government can do that corporations can't do better.

          The scary thing is, there are people who actually believe that crap, and want to force those beliefs on us rather than just opting out of the system and making one of their own.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Brian Gordon ( 987471 )
            You're going to be modded up by people who don't get to your last sentence o_o Also I was using "insane" as one of those cool kid words, not like how you 4-digit-uid geezers think it means.. highly regulated not unfairly regulated

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Missing_dc ( 1074809 )
            Unfortunately, there is no OPT OUT available for these "public services" or "utilities"
            Its take it or move to BFE Midwest and live like a fricken hermit.

            That being said the Telecoms and Cable Cos seem to forget they pretty much asked to be a utility to get the (semi)monopoly status, and now don't want to act like one.

            And don't get me started on the whole net nutrality subject~!!!! (/sarcasm (for those who do not get the new ~=sarcasm meme))

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Lord Flipper ( 627481 ) *

              Its take it or move to BFE Midwest and live like a fricken hermit.

              I'm curious about something: What does 'BFE Midwest' stand for, or mean?

              I moved out to the Minneapolis-St Paul area a couple years ago, and although I've always met great folks wherever I've, these Minnesotans are the nicest bunch of them all. Helpful, you can talk to young and old alike out in public without getting paranoid or 'WTF' reactions that are so common elsewhere in the States. And the State, itself, has this sort of conservative, yet very progressive 'tilt' to it. And of course a bunch of the

          • Re:As an American, I would like to know (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Friday April 04, 2008 @06:06PM (#22968944) Homepage
            The thing is that while some things are very effective to run as a monopoly, it's very difficult to make a monopoly run effectively. The drive for margins tend to be lacking throughout the organization, and everyone is bloating their own needs to get a more comfortable budget. Ultimately the politicians granting money try to cut costs but it's like working for a company where only the CEO wants to save money. Also you have issues with workers intentionally slowing down and creating a backlog, it's very easy to lose to passive resistance because usually the solution is to recieve more money, not that the department is laid off because the company is bleeding.

            They try various methods like regulation, bids and other things but none of them really work that well. Take bids for example, they usually deliver the minimum of the service requirements, the way the operation is driven is kept as a competitive secret and it's usually hard to get real competition against the incumbent that's already got the staff, the routines and the equipment in place. Regulation is trying to keep the squeeze on the company to simulate the market pressure, but it's really difficult to know how hard to squeeze because the regulated company will undoubtably say you're trying to squeeze blood from a rock. Set service requirements and you'll certainly get a too high claim of how much it'll cost to deliver and so on.

            In the end, I understand perfectly well why people look to many of those poorly handled monopolies and say "Man, if only we could get private companies competing for that". I've only dealt closely with one such monopoly and there were simply so many excesses, the great location, the great offices, the fancy equipment in EVERY meeting room, the free beverages and snacks, the great cafeteria and a million other small things... it's all those things that show they got money to spend, and don't really care what the bill adds up to. They just need something that legitimately can be expensed as business cost, and it's fine. They're still on public salary levels and they can't raise those much, but it's no doubt the money was loose and the work pressure low...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by eln ( 21727 )
          Just like the government wouldn't give the telecoms billions of dollars in subsidies to upgrade their networks and then allow them to continue to raise rates and delay those same upgrades while spending the money on, apparently, hookers and blow? Congress works for the lobbyists (including telecom lobbyists), not for the people. Same with the FCC, which has spend the last several years either rolling back or just ignoring various regulations intended to keep these companies from having too much power.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by _KiTA_ ( 241027 )

        I'd be surprised if the Bells in the USA didn't start making this same argument here soon. After all, they have to compete with cable and satellite. Why would anyone need more choices than that?

        Didn't they (read: large corporate internet/content providers like Qwest and Charter) already do this, in reverse? I mean, wasn't that one of their major arguments AGAINST opening the Cable networks to competition? "Why should we allow you to get someone else's pipe on your cable modem? You already could just get DSL or Satellite!"

      • I'd be surprised if the Bells in the USA didn't start making this same argument here soon. After all, they have to compete with cable and satellite. Why would anyone need more choices than that?

        Most people don't have a choice, either for landline phone service or broadband net access. The only substantial choice people in the US have is with cellphone service, however it's not setup for broadband yet. Now though businesses could use the newly available 700 MHz bands to offer wireless broadband.

        But ba

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by skywolf3 ( 1149597 )
        I do know that here in Atlanta AT&T has been making it very difficult for third-party ISPs to operate. With AT&T trying to hard to kick Comcast in the ass, they are now giving priority to AT&T's on demand video, I often get disconnected or get smacked with high latency at peak times. My neighbors who use AT&T's own dsl, don't have these issues. I'm just waiting for the day when AT&T says enough and just boots them. I really don't know what I would do. Comcast filters, AT&T plays mea

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hurfy ( 735314 )
          I wonder if qwest is messing with the indies.
          My age old DSL has been acting up a bit lately :(

          "Besides, my third-party ISP actually has employees who answer the phone, speak english, live in the same town as me and KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT!!"

          Not only that but tech support for mine is actually the guy who manages the ISP's routers and stuff!! :)

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by budgenator ( 254554 )
          the other point is in Canada and the US, the cable-co and the Tele-co's don't really compete that much, they seem to do a dance around the borders but don't really enter the vital territory. The third party ISP on the other hand do compete when Bell-CA started filtering, they chopped the legs out from under the 3rd parties by eliminating one of the few ways they could offer a substantially better service by actualy delivering what was promised in the ads.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by jfp51 ( 64421 )
      Canada has the Competition Act and also a common law framework that provides the legal basis.
  • Throttling is at the other end of the pipe, where they have you by the short and curlies. This is the latest salvo in another volley of lawsuits. This is the beginning of the end of teh internets. Soon you will have a public utility running a subsidized feed of advertisements and surveilance kit to your boxen, call it TV++.

    Whatever we get, it is double-plus ungood. It is increasingly clear to me that the www, at least, has been dead for about a decade.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jon3k ( 691256 )
      "Whatever we get, it is double-plus ungood. It is increasingly clear to me that the www, at least, has been dead for about a decade."

      Dead in what sense? Because if I compare the world wide web in 1998 to the one we have to day, dead is not how I would describe it.

      • Dead in what sense? Because if I compare the world wide web in 1998 to the one we have to day, dead is not how I would describe it.

        Call it unrealised potential then. The web is pretty much the same as 1998 - just more ads. A few brochure ware sites, a search engine or two, a couple of mail sites, an auction house. The web is dead because it was never given a chance to live. To many people the web and the internet are the same thing.

        To those of us around on the 'net before 1998 the web is just a T-Model:

  • Good for them (Score:2, Insightful)

    by FireXtol ( 1262832 )
    I've thought for quite a while that forcing telecoms to lease bandwidth to 3rd party providers has been a bad idea. Look at Qwest's leasing options with MSN. MSN has a contract that states they MUST be the lowest-priced Qwest-backed ISP! This is, of course, only BAD for competition. It's just supporting the huge MS monopoly.

    • I've thought for quite a while that forcing telecoms to lease bandwidth to 3rd party providers has been a bad idea.

      What's bad are taxpayer supported monopolies. These companies, telcos and cablecos, have been given monopolies then they've been given taxpayer money to buildout a broadband infrastructure. Which they didn't do.

      Falcon
    • what your point, that lower priced internet is bad?

      EPIC FAIL.

  • Can't play well, eh? Dump them-- DSL and landlines-- and go to VoIP. And take Rogers with.

    Truly: they don't understand the Internet, only monopolistic revenues. They're never spanked, so hit them in the wallet, where they'll feel it as that's where their hearts and souls are.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JordanL ( 886154 )

      Dump them-- DSL and landlines-- and go to VoIP
      Ummmm... without landline infrastructure, how do you plan on conveying that VoIP data?

      Unless what you really meant was get rid of all telephone lines (and by proxy DSL), presumably to make way for direct fiber, which sounds like a whole lot of billions of dollars to me if we're going to go ahead and do the whole system at once.
      • Consider: cell phones. Consider: connectivity that doesn't use 'landlines' or tip-and-ring technology, rather, symmetrical fibre and local digital infrastructure (not DSL). Get rid of the monopolies and governmental sanctioned phone-mafias. Be inventive. Be firm.

        • And cellphones can do broadband?

          Consider: connectivity that doesn't use 'landlines' or tip-and-ring technology, rather, symmetrical fibre and local digital infrastructure (not DSL).

          Fiber isn't landline? It may be glass instead of copper but it still requires the same right of way and even more labour to install.

          Get rid of the monopolies and governmental sanctioned phone-mafias.

          Agreed, however the problem is in the details. For instance someone has to pay to build then maintain and own the infras

          • Project Utopia in Utah is a good example of what can be done when you get people to make it happen. And no, landlines refer to tip-and-ring technology of the old phone companies. Fiber is in lots of places, thanks to the Rolling '90s. A lot of it is dark and no one knows just how much except those that laid it. Cellphones do a heel-on-the-garden-hose broadband. Not very good. But there are ways to say 'no' to monopolistic behavior.

            • Project Utopia in Utah is a good example of what can be done when you get people to make it happen.

              Yea, though as a libertarian I believe in small government I like Utopia. A system like it doesn't require the government to own the infrastructure though, all it requires is to require the owner of the infrastructure to allow open access to it and bar them from compeating with anyone who wants to offer any services it can deliver. I like the idea of having a coop own it, as it is now utility coops [wikipedia.org] alread

    • OK... we ignore DSL/twisted copper/FiOS, we ignore Cable/co-axial...

      What, pray tell, are you running your VoIP over? Satellite? Some cellular network that doesn't use Bell or Rogers trunk lines?

      Spanking Bell profits Rogers. Spanking Rogers profits Bell. About the only thing you can do is stop using voice and data services altogether to avoid directly or indirectly paying one of those companies.

      Or you can move.
      • What you could do is, instead of spanking one or the other, whip out a big stick and whale on both of them. Lay a beating on Telus while you're at it, and a light paddling to Aliant, MTS, Sasktel, Shaw and Cogeco. Oh, and Videotron should be bludgeoned to death.

        The bludgeon, in the case of most of these, would be maintaining the wired-line lease requirement and adding a requirement to lease wireless airtime, tower and spectrum access.

        A la carte TV would be nice, too.

        • A la carte TV would be nice, too.
          Isn't that called Bittorrent? :D

          Seriously thoughb, sounds like a good plan. Why lease spectrum access though? The companies don't own that or control the infrastructure... the other guys just have to apply for access and be allocated a chunk. I could see mandatory leasing of assigned but unused chunks though; that would get the big boys to at least put SOMETHING on the bandwidth they've reserved.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jon3k ( 691256 )
        Just run the last mile over wireless, and we will in a few years (read: WiMax).
    • "so hit them in the wallet, where they'll feel it as that's where their hearts and souls are."

      So telco managers in Canada have souls? I didn't realize the difference between our two countries was so great.
      • Of course they have souls. They're sitting in a climate-controlled vault in Hell, right next to the room that contains the souls of anyone in the Insurance industry.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Missing_dc ( 1074809 )
      See through the politics and bullshit, this is a "red herring" they say they don't want the extra revenue from the 3rd party ISPs, but in reality they are just asking for a concession from the 3rd parties ("OK we'll accept the throttling, just don't drop us")
      • Seems like a red herrings, but even red herrings add up to fodder to be used to get what they want. The concessions they want aren't deserved.
  • Google is so happy about all that openness. That they keep talking about. Why not just come out and admit that they took a beating? Now that Verizon got the spectrum (and doesn't have to fear last-mile competition) they are trying to consolidate all access. And Google is trying to claim that possession of the spectrum doesn't give them complete control. Right.... It's only a matter of time until the Bells re-consolidate. Google loss was a huge loss for everyone. No matter how many "don't panic, we a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by masdog ( 794316 )
      Google still had a small victory in that loss. Part of the spectrum required completely open access to all third parties. Now whether that is done voluntarily or through a lawsuit or two remains to be seen.
      • has beePosession is 9/10 of the law. A "lawsuit or two" can be dragged out for years until the market is manipulated to the point where paying the damages for the past instances of non-compliance will become irrelevant -- a monopoly will have been established.

        • hPosession is 9/10 of the law. A "lawsuit or two" can be dragged out for years until the market is manipulated to the point where paying the damages for the past instances of non-compliance will become irrelevant -- a monopoly will have been established.

          And you know what happens to companies that do that? That really, truly violate a government order allowing private citizens to access something created with private funds?

          they get their corporate charter revoked, all shareholders lose everything, and their assests are auctioned off to their competition in a firesale.

          This isn't Microsoft selling a new type of phone. It's Enron trying to sell a new type of power line.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Fex303 ( 557896 )

            they get their corporate charter revoked, all shareholders lose everything, and their assests are auctioned off to their competition in a firesale.
            That's a lovely thought, but when did this last happen to a major corporation?

            Pissing off a large number of powerful people who own shares results in politicians not getting any money to get re-elected. As such, it won't happen.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jon3k ( 691256 )
      They forced the providers to pay through the teeth, who now have to manage it, and google still get's access to it? Umm, I fail to see how Google "took a beating" ?
  • ... but they put up that big barricade to make it impossible. They tested it quite thoroughly by having Cletus attempt to circumvent the anti-dumping device and he was unable to. It's foolproof.s

    OK, so an early flaw was that you could ram the barricade with your car allowing you to dump a silo full of pig manure, but they learned their lesson and fixed that.

    So good luck Bell with dumping your "third-party ISPs" (whatever that is). There is simply no way you will be able to.
  • It didn't work in the US, there seem to be problems in the UK, and now Canada. Retrofitting open access into networks and companies that weren't built for it just doesn't work politically or financially, because the telcos always find ways to screw it up (aka loopholes, regulatory capture).

    If we want an open access infrastructure, I am forced to conclude that we need to build it.

    • Re:DSL reselling/unbundling doesn't work (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rpp3po ( 641313 ) on Friday April 04, 2008 @04:14PM (#22968014)

      It didn't work in the US...
      Of course it works! For example, there is a very healthy and competitive DSL resale market in Germany. It is protected by strong anti monopolistic government regulation and works out quite well. Needless to say that you need something else than a lobbyist infiltrated FCC to accomplish something like that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nuzak ( 959558 )

        It didn't work in the US...
        Of course it works! For example, there is a very healthy and competitive DSL resale market in Germany.
        I'd like to be the first to give a big American welcome to our 51st state, Germany!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by masdog ( 794316 )
      The question is - how do you build an open-access infrastructure without having to completely rip and replace all the last mile infrastructure in the United States and Canada? Not that I doubt its possible, but from a business standpoint, they like the current infrastructure. They make money no matter what - either by charging competitors to allow them access to the system or by charging customers. And they don't have to invest capital in updating the network (which everyone but Verizon seems to be avoid

      • The question is - how do you build an open-access infrastructure without having to completely rip and replace all the last mile infrastructure in the United States and Canada?
        Exactly, so we're screwed either way. (Technically you don't have to rip and replace; you can build a parallel infrastructure. But the cost is the same.)
      • It's not their decision to make, it's ours. I think the next time they whine about the conditions of their "parole"(what I call their inheriting a monopoly and behaving like it still exists) I think we need to tell them they're just a managing company, and can be replaced at our whim. Let's see bell paying the network access fee, and see if they like it. They want to charge for use of something WE own, they shouldn't be allowed to profit from that.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by dadragon ( 177695 )
        I work for SaskTel [sasktel.com], a smallish telco in Canada, but still an ILEC in Sasktchewan. Here's how our network works:
        • Our landline switches have access points for third party long distance switches interconnecting with ours. This allows for long distance competition.
        • Our landline switches also have access points for third party telephone company switches, for example Shaw [www.shaw.ca] has telephone service in my city. Rogers and SaskTel mobility also provice local service.
        • Although we don't have any, third party unbundled loo

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Froster ( 985053 )

      Until this all hit the fan in recent weeks (after the CRTC affirmed their policy to force Bell to continue to lease its lines) I had no idea there was a problem. Just looking at the math on paper, it seems relatively clear that Bell is still making decent money maintaining the network, as $20 of my $29.99 internet service is going directly to Bell, and I am also paying $9.10 extra for a dry loop to my house as well. So, of my monthly internet cost, $29.10 is for Bell to provide the connection, and roughly $

      • I would have to say though that my preference would be that Bell should be broken up into one company that maintains the network, and another company that sells the service. That way, Bell's Sympatico service would have to compete on equal footing with any other DSL provider.


        Doing that would undoubtedly bankrupt Bell Sympatico, as people realize that Sympatico's service is the shits, and they get tired of yelling at Emily for a human being.
  • The "infrastructure" business seems like a hell of a niche to get in to. Rather then being a provider yourself, you provide the copper/fiber/whatever and lease it out to whoever. If you agree to a few monopoly stipulations (like not competing with your third party vendors), you could probably suck on the government tit for generations to come. Someone get me a VC on the line, I think I can take over Manhattan by Monday.
  • I know this is about Bell Canada, but I thought the situation was pretty much the same there as here in the US; that is - very little competition.

    The first thing I thought when I read "there is plenty of competition" was "Bahahahaha, yeah right! Good one!".

    Most places you get one or maybe two choices (and no, satellite doesn't count).

    And hey, more choice would be good, but the opposite wouldn't be bad either: municipal fiber being more common. As far as I'm concerned, broadband is a utility.

  • VoIP,etc,etc, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by loconet ( 415875 ) on Friday April 04, 2008 @04:20PM (#22968090) Homepage
    I can't believe they could actually get away with this. There goes VoIP. This basically leaves us with Rogers and Bell to choose from. Period. Since Bell is still mainly a telephone company, I can't imagine Bell being too happy with customers switching to VoIP providers either (same with Rogers, they also offer a home phone service. ). If they can get away with throttling their internet provider competition or flat out lobby against their existence, what's to say they won't plain out choke out VoIP as well? Or Skype? Or "Youtube" - because they "compete" against their sat service. Where does this stop.

    We, citizens, need to light a fire up the government's ass to step in on this one.

  • Say Yes, But With A Caveat... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday April 04, 2008 @04:24PM (#22968134) Journal
    If I was in government, I'd say yes to Bell, but with the caveat that they would now to have rent the right-of-ways they were effectively given all those years ago.

    The Telcos have forgotten that their networks, both in Canada and the US, were built, one way or the other, with the good graces and money of the taxpayers. Those right-of-ways were essentially a gift, with the understanding that they would be used to make communications near-universal.

    If the Telcos want to end that universality, then I think their automatic right to those right-of-ways should be removed. We can either go to an open bid, or we can do annual leases, the rates dependent on how nicely the Telcos behave. If they don't like it, they can go buy their own right-of-ways. Might be a bit problematic in major cities, but oh well, I don't think these bastards deserve an ounce of consideration any more.
  • I have Sympatico and it SUCKS great steaming tourdes. Right out of my butt. It seems like EVERY night right around 7 PM everything grinds to a halt. first thing in the morning - bing bang quick as lightning, but in the evening, it's like they're specifically jerking me around.

    It really bites. Example: lest night, 8.30 pm. I fire up my computer (MacBookPro) click connect, and suddenly the DSL light goes out. Then it comes back on. Then it goes out. when it finally links up I've got a DL speed of something

    • I had similar problems with DSLExtreme here in SoCal, using wire leased from Verizon. Great all day until about 6:00PM, then severe packet loss until about 10:00PM. After three months of phone calls, service visits, etc. I just gave up and got a SOHO plan with the local cable provider, Cox, which has been great. But more expensive.
  • The amount of regulation should be proportianal to the barrier of entry in a market. $1 trillion to enter? Regulate the fsck out of the one or maybe two entities that can afford that. Capitalism only works when healthy competition exists, otherwise the market must be regulated simply because the feedback mechanisms that make capitalism so wonderful just break down with monopolies. Also, monopolies are natural features: they emerge every once in a while and need to be broken up when they do - they are a
  • In 1996 my family signed up as beta-testers for cable internet with Videotron. We were given a 5/5 connection, as beta-testers at the time it was free but once the service was mainline it was only 40 dollars a month. Not bad, keep in mind that Telus wasn't even offering DSL at this point... Shaw then buys out Videotron in Alberta and creates the "powersurfr" brand... prices go up and speeds fall to 2/768! Now, for a lovely 60 dollars a month I can get a 10/1 connection that has a cap... it used to be unlimi
    • Oh don't worry telstra are looking across the pond and want what you guys have.

      our own parasites just turned on adsl2 (only have being pushed over the edge by 3rd parties installing their own dslams) but only did with the hollow threat that they wouldn't if they were forced to open it up to 3rd parties.

      telstra's level of stupidity is easily approching your own bell's, with them "threatening" to not bid on a government tender for building a FTTN network if they have to allow open access. like anyone cares

  • If competition is so great.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Seek_1 ( 639070 ) on Friday April 04, 2008 @04:38PM (#22968298)
    Would someone please tell me where I can an ISP in Ottawa (Canada's Capital of all places) that doesn't have a downstream cap, or throttling/traffic shaping and has (god formid) decent customer service.

    I'm looking for a new ISP because just this week I got a notice from Rogers that they've decided to change the definition of 'unlimited' to 95Gigs + $1.50/Gig after that. While I understand that Rogers is utterly incompetent, once my services and billing were properly set up, they required very little maintenance once they were up and running (it took me almost two years for their 'system' to properly bill me automatically and send me a paper invoice). Because of this I haven't had a reason to switch. ***Attention Shareholders*** Now I do.

    I've been looking at CIA.com (www.cia.com) recently as they come highly recommended, but I'm waiting until I can get some more concrete numbers before signing up.

    And yes, I will be cancelling my Rogers account now (After nine years), and have no plans to switch over to Bell.
  • I can only imagine that Bell's public relations director is out-sick today. He'll walk in Monday, see his 1,046 new voicemails, go in the corner and cry.

  • Bell Canada is right .... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kwandar ( 733439 ) on Friday April 04, 2008 @05:11PM (#22968562)

    and the sooner they pay back the differential between the monopolistic prices they received to subsidize their phone infrastructure for 100 years, and competitive prices, the better.

    Those funds can be used to subsidize third party "last mile" networks, if Bell Canada is so suddenly keen on bringing competition to the market! And while we are at it, the cable carriers can do the same thing (albiet for a shorter time period). Lets see how they like it when there is more than a duopoly involved in the "last mile"

  • What's an "entirely" and what's wrong with ISPs having one?

  • Problem Isn't Bell or the CRTC (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mrobinso ( 456353 ) on Friday April 04, 2008 @05:49PM (#22968798) Homepage
    The most disconcerting message in the story is the interview Nowak had with Paul Geist. In it is mention of the fact that Minister of Industry Jim Prentice is AWOL on the issue. I mean, who would dare ask the Minister in charge of investigating anti-competitive offences - and they are serious offences - to look into what has to be one of the worst companies to do business with in Canada. I won't even mention that one of the most recent former Ministers of Industry had just been previously employed as ::cough:: head of regulatory affairs at ::cough:: Bell Canada.

    While you might think that the CRTC is an old antequated fossil that needs to be put out of its misery, the Minsitry of Industry is on life support. What's left of it is being run by gutless bureaucrats more interested in their career path in private business post-federal brothel than protecting Canadians from scheming corporate predators, marketing fraud, advertising scams, artificially high gas prices, the list goes on and on...

    Bell Canada is the least of our worries.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real programmers don't bring brown-bag lunches. If the vending machine doesn't sell it, they don't eat it. Vending machines don't sell quiche.

Close