or they does not care to take on Bell after all CTV and the Globe &Mail they are part of Bell… speaking of monopolies, and more governmental regulations here they are now needed too.

http://anyonecare.wordpress.com/?p=49

1. They throttled all the competition
2. they lease the infrastructure to the comeptition (the phone lines access to the Central office and so forth)
3. They filed in court to have the mandated fixed prices that they must lease this at removed.

So if they can control the entire cost of the competition, and throttle all the competition, where does it leave their ISP division sitting?

Bell-Sympatico the throttled ISP who’s service is 50$+ , 60-gig limit (sky-is the limit B/W pricing) VS. the competition who is unthrottled 30-35$, unlimited B/W

This changes to:

Bell-Sympatico the throttled ISP who’s service is 50$+ , 60-gig limit (sky-is the limit B/W pricing) VS. the competition who is throttled by force, unlimited B/W and now priced the same as them or more.

This then free’s up internal B/W to offer IP-TV a new added service!

Bell content for pay VS competition content for free (which they will slow down to 30kB/s)

After they screw all canadians, they will jack their prices up yet again, and can also jack up the prices of the comeptition by force if they win in court.

There are two fronts being fought.

1. The throttling of the competition when they deem fit.
2. Court filing to eliminate the C R T C (like the F C C) fixed cost of what they can charge the competition to wholesale competition.

win-win for Bell, Bell-sympatico, Bells new IP-TV roll out.

The people of Canada WILL have controlled content.
The people of Canada will no longer have the choice to choose an unthrottled service.
The people of Canada will no longer have the choice to choose a 30$ Internet Service Provider.
30$ internet will be a thing of the past very shortly.

Thats if the people don’t start waking up! And many haven’t got a clue.

The mainstream media doesn’t even have a clue. Their technology deficient editors stop the reporting when they can’t understand whats happening (A recent Montreal Gazette reporter even mentioned this). If the editors don’t understand they say the people won’t understand, and remove it. Such is main-stream media.

Control.

Profitable? Hmmm… What comeptition?

2. Or a way to make their internet offering comparable to the competition. Or trying to prevent another mass loss of clients to the competition, hence the reason to throttle them all.

3. Thats assuming there truely IS an internal network problem. So far no proof of this.

4. People calling in to quite their service are being told this is what they have paid for, and Bell wants them to pay 100-200$ to quit.

It’s really hard to believe (based on my bandwidth used for p2p applications) that 5% of the customers can really be that much of a load on the system unless that system is horribly overloaded in the first place.

If they are multiplexing too many clients on a small system, then they need to increase the size of their system, or reduce their client load by refusing more customers. This is a classic problem with Cable ISPs. I had to drop my Cable Internet after several years because they put too many customers on my node, reducing my bandwidth to nearly zero.

If I do not get unfettered bandwidth, like my contract specifies, I do business elsewhere.