4 ms·
It's not laissez-faire and it's not 'suddenly imposed' If there's plenty of bandwidth to go around and existing providers impose caps, then new entrants will l
by tom_rath 18y ago
It's not laissez-faire and it's not 'suddenly imposed'
If there's plenty of bandwidth to go around and existing providers impose caps, then new entrants will lease that bandwidth and provide residential customers with unlimited bandwidth plans.
Telecom regulations should prevent new entrants from being blocked from doing just that. If they are blocked (and the Canadian system isn't laissez-faire, so they shouldn't be), then you'll have an issue to gripe about.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- electromagnetic 18y agoThey aren't blocked, what Bell is doing is trying to block the system! All small ISP's are forced to go through Bell's network, and Bell is trying to charge them higher per gigabyte than they do their own customers, so you have no choice but to go with Bell if you're stranded on their network.
- rms 18y agoLocally to me, Verizon wholesales DSL at retail prices. So it is $30/month to get it from Verizon and $60/month to get it from anyone else.
- mrtron 18y agoThe problem being Bell is wanting to cap all the other providers. Currently here it is the opposite - it is cheaper from other providers than from Bell directly. Now, it wants to be able to also cap those other providers to prevent them from offering unlimited services. Bell wants to do what it does in the mobile space and nail everyone with massive overage fees after the tiny limits are exceeded. Until mid 2008, the largest cell phone data plan you could get from Bell or Rogers was 5 MEGS. They charged by the kilobyte after that.