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 would take a broader view of it like so: would not having access to the internet be seriously crippling economically? Are market mechanisms providing service to all Canadians at a reasonable price?
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.
"Content and infrastructure MUST be separated if we are to effectively create fair pricing conditions and net neutrality."
Or at least strongly regulated. The more I read about the situation there, the more it sucks.
Especially because I remember 10 years ago I was boggling at guys in Canada with 10mbit cable connections (getting 4mbps), whilst 512/128 (getting 200mbps down) ADSL or cable was just becoming a reality here.
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.