Meinung: Wenn Bell nicht gerne mit Telus in einem eigenen Breitbandnetzwerk konkurriert, wird es die Alternativen wirklich nicht mögen
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-bell-telus-competition-network-fibre-optic/
Meinung: Wenn Bell nicht gerne mit Telus in einem eigenen Breitbandnetzwerk konkurriert, wird es die Alternativen wirklich nicht mögen
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-bell-telus-competition-network-fibre-optic/
3 Kommentare
The Canadian Government needs to bite the bullet and follow UK, Australia and New Zealand.
All backbone with one provider.
All last mile access with another provider.
And there can be multiple retailers.
Yes. Let Bell own the Backbone and last mile access across the country- but as separate entities and provide e equivalence of input to all retailers including Bell retail.
It’s interesting that the author completely ignores the fact that small Internet providers are actually siding with Bell on this one. Small providers want access to the incumbant’s fibre network but they don’t want to have to compete with Telus on top of Bell. This will eventually kill all the small indy ISPs and further establish the big 3 olygopoly.
> Meanwhile, some of the smaller providers said allowing the Big Three to access wholesale fibre internet would decrease competition.
>
> The Competitive Network Operators of Canada, an industry association representing independent internet service providers, warned that the large carriers could exploit wholesale access rules, in part by luring customers through cellphone and internet bundles — an advantage the big carriers have over some standalone independent companies.
>
> Paul Andersen, chair and president of the association, said the latest ruling hurts competition.
https://halifax.citynews.ca/2025/02/03/crtc-stands-by-allowing-big-3-telecoms-to-sell-wholesale-fibre-internet-in-some-areas/
I really like Coyne’s thesis with this article: that we should split the ownership and operation of telecom networks and telecom service providers (who sell time on telecom networks to consumers), effectively ending the current vertically integrated model of telecom in this country.
It’s becoming increasingly clear, through Bell’s endless hissyfit over these regulatory changes that now force them to provide network access to resellers, that the natural conflict of interest that arises in this situation is harmful. Bell’s goal to limit access to their network is completely based on their desire to make as much money as humanly possible, selling network access directly to end consumers. If we take Bell’s word on the matter, this conflict of interest is causing a lack of network investment.
Thus, spinning off telecommunications networks to completely independent companies, who can only sell network access to other companies who in turn sell to consumers, would increase competition without undermining network investment. These network companies could either be publicly owned or not-for-profit companies to ensure that all money collected from selling network access is reinvested in a better service.