Bell To Limit Competitor ISP Downloads

The CBC reports that Bell is planning to impose download limits on customers of independent ISPs, undermining the ISPs' ability to compete in the marketplace.


  1. They have to be stopped
    I know telecomunication issues aren’t always in the purvue of the CRTC but someone, anyone, has to start legislating protection for consumers in this industry.

  2. Maupassant says:

    Bell limiting independents
    See, a perfect illustration why net neutrality regulation is unnecessary– there is such effective competition. </sarcasm>

  3. Force a sell off of Internet Divisons
    It’s time the Bell/Rogers communication Monopoly is broken up.

    Rogers/Bell should be forced to SELL their internet divisions.

    It’s a blatant conflict of interest to be streaming movies to your TV, running stores that rent dvds – and controlling the next cable system – the Internet.

    Bell/Rogers need to decide where their heart lies – in providing content for your Television or for the Internet not BOTH.

  4. Re: Force sell off
    Tom. I agree that the regulators should look at causing a breakup of Bell and Rogers, but I am not so sure that forcing them to sell off just their internet divisions is the right way.

    In particular for Bell, the internet traffic goes on the same backbone as the regular voice traffic. I’d suggest that the approach could be, in the case of Bell, that the backbone be split off as a separate company from the “last mile” connectivity company, from the “services”, such as telephone, internet, etc. This is not unlike what happened with Ontario Hydro (generating, distribution, and other services such as hot water tank rental), and with AT&T in the US.

    This way, an independent ISP can purchase bandwidth from the “backbone” company directly, especially useful if they are a wireless company. Landline ISPs can make their own arrangements with the “last mile” company for service. The issue is it probably means more bills coming in… the “last mile” and backbone on a single bill. Voice on its own. Internet and other services on its own… etc.

  5. BellRubbish
    More Bell nonsense. Even their CRTC puppets, while undoubtedly appreciative of being fed their next sound-bite, know the “heavy user” refrain is only weak camouflage for anti-competitive conduct.

    My ISP is a wholesale customer of Bell. They have several plans available. They state max upload and download rates, cap if applicable, number of e-mail/web accounts and associated storage,and price. With the usual disclaimers for unforeseen hardware/network issues, they intend to ensure I get those advertised rates 24/7 and for whatever use I want, as long as I comply with their TOS. They have been very reliable in this respect for three years. A good example of honest advertising.

    Here’s the important bit… I can never exceed the maximums. I don’t consider this throttling, as I’m getting what I was promised. (And, except for Bell’s interference starting in March, I get it all day, every day.) My ISP buys a chunk of bandwidth from Bell. Simple math dictates how many accounts can be truthfully sold at various service levels, without exceeding the amount of that “chunk” from Bell. Not much opportunity for me or my ISP to be “heavy” users.

    Back to Bell. One of the reasons I didn’t consider Bell Sympatico when shopping for high-speed, was the experiences of friends who had already dealt with them. From outright bandwidth restrictions, to mysterious network “outages” for which no explanation or apology would be forthcoming, to multiple reductions in e-mail storage capacity, it has always been apparent to me that Bell intends to eschew honesty in advertised, and subsequently provided, service to their subscribers. Facing their own upper limits of data storage and transmission, do they invest in infrastructure sufficient to keep pace, or perhaps limit account creation until they can? Nope. Rather, small-print weaseling substitutes “maximum…maybe, sometimes during off hours, only if nobody else signs up for a while,and only if you agree to just surf and get e-mail” for the numbers in big bold font in their advertising. Numbers, I’m certain, that cannot be exceeded in any case. Yet Bell continues to portray their customers who try to maximize their usage (that they paid good money for) as anti-social thieves. How pathetic.

    Repeat after me: There’s no such thing as a heavy user.


  6. Henry Collin says:

    CRTC and Bell
    I wonder which way the CRTC will go.

    The problem is the unscrupulous practices in the CRTC itself that have allowed it to be filled with ex-Bell employees that continue to work hard on Bell’s behalf. I know of a former CRTC employee that left the CRTC after they were forced to hire unqualified former Bell employees by an ex-Bell CRTC Director generale.

    Furthermore, the competition that Bell won to recieve the Do Not Call List contract was heavily influenced by a former Bell lawyer.

    Clearly, the CRTC has no conception of conflict of intrests.