5 ms·
>- UBB is anti-competitive So far as I am aware, for something to be "anti-competitive" it must restrict the (otherwise non-criminal) actions of extant or woul
by ataggart 16y ago
>- UBB is anti-competitive
So far as I am aware, for something to be "anti-competitive" it must restrict the (otherwise non-criminal) actions of extant or would-be competitors in a market. From what I've been able to glean about the UBB brouhaha, the change is a removal of such a restriction, thus would be quite the opposite of "anti-competitive."
Perhaps the deeper issue is that relaxation of this anti-competitive restriction would reveal the negative effects of actual anti-competitive CRTC regulations. To paraphrase Henry David Thoreau, instead of hacking at the branches of "anti-competition," perhaps you should strike at the root.
- forensic 16y agoIt's anti-competitive because they're using a monopoly in one area to gain a competitive advantage in another area. Bell's IPTV service would not be subject to the UBB pricing while Netflix would be.
- ataggart 16y ago>they're using a monopoly in one area Then it would be the regulations granting monopoly that are anti-competitive. Again, removing restrictions on extant and would-be competitors cannot be anti-competitive; words mean things.
- mrcharles 16y agoActually, the uproar about UBB specifically is that Bell is allowed to enforce it's own retail UBB on companies who use their last mile lines to user homes. Aka, it forces competitors to charge the same prices as bell does. That's why it's anti competitive.