Bell has added thousands of customers to its fibre internet service through network expansion projects, but Bell's CEO argues the figure could've been higher if not for "regulatory uncertainty."
CEO Mirko Bibic said the decision could lead Bell to slow down its expansion plans in 2024
You could argue they’re monopolies given there’s only one cable provider and one phone provider to an area. Maybe you could argue that’s a duopoly as both provide comparable services overall.
However, for many Canadian’s it’s actually a monopoly. Many areas do not have cable services at all. In a lot of areas, the companies have chosen not to compete so effectively residents only have one choice for high speed internet. Even in highly built up areas, like Toronto, many new high-rises are being built with only one connection, so again, residents don’t have a choice.
The choosing not to compete is the outcome of the oligopoly. That’s what it is, and it’s outcome.
Bell knows that if they leave that area to Roger’s, Roger’s will leave this other area to Bell, because it’ll cost both of them too much money to move into the other spot and lower their prices, when they both can reap the rewards of not competing in that spot. They don’t have to worry about anyone else because it’s mainly just the 3 of them, Telus, being the other.
Moving into a building with only 1 choice sucks and should probably not be allowed if it’s a contracted thing.
Moving into a building with only 1 choice sucks and should probably not be allowed if it’s a contracted thing.
It’s what we get for still treating the Internet like a commodity in 2023. At this point, it’s pretty laughable to try and make the argument that it’s not a utility.
Reminds me of when I went to college, and the transport anti-monopolization laws a few years ago, which made my college that had multiple companies going there… have a literal monopoly. Made a no-tranfer ride into a one or sometimes two transfer ride ontop.
Nah, Monopoly. Telus owns all of the lines the government money built out west, Bell owns it all out east. They trade for access without charging each other what they charge everyone else.
Oligopoly, not monopoly
You could argue they’re monopolies given there’s only one cable provider and one phone provider to an area. Maybe you could argue that’s a duopoly as both provide comparable services overall.
However, for many Canadian’s it’s actually a monopoly. Many areas do not have cable services at all. In a lot of areas, the companies have chosen not to compete so effectively residents only have one choice for high speed internet. Even in highly built up areas, like Toronto, many new high-rises are being built with only one connection, so again, residents don’t have a choice.
I have to choose between Bell and
The choosing not to compete is the outcome of the oligopoly. That’s what it is, and it’s outcome.
Bell knows that if they leave that area to Roger’s, Roger’s will leave this other area to Bell, because it’ll cost both of them too much money to move into the other spot and lower their prices, when they both can reap the rewards of not competing in that spot. They don’t have to worry about anyone else because it’s mainly just the 3 of them, Telus, being the other.
Moving into a building with only 1 choice sucks and should probably not be allowed if it’s a contracted thing.
It’s what we get for still treating the Internet like a commodity in 2023. At this point, it’s pretty laughable to try and make the argument that it’s not a utility.
Reminds me of when I went to college, and the transport anti-monopolization laws a few years ago, which made my college that had multiple companies going there… have a literal monopoly. Made a no-tranfer ride into a one or sometimes two transfer ride ontop.
Nah, Monopoly. Telus owns all of the lines the government money built out west, Bell owns it all out east. They trade for access without charging each other what they charge everyone else.