Bell had argued against the policy, saying it discourages the major providers from investing in their own infrastructure
fuck off, you steal tax payers money to build that shit. it’s not even yours bell. none of ‘your’ infrastructure is
I forget who but I just saw a thread last week about how Rogers (?) took billions in taxpayer money to build out coverage for a highway in BC and then just abandoned it without delivering. While keeping the money! Wtf
Lol, large Internet providers are known for taking government money to build infrastructure and then get rich off the proceedings
They’re not known for investing much of their own money
In June, the regulator issued its final decision on the contentious matter, which has pitted Telus Corp. against rivals Bell Canada and Rogers Communications Inc., and many smaller providers that opposed the framework.
Now this is odd. No further detail to clarify who those were and what their objections were. Perhaps those were the smaller providers now owned by Rogers and Bell?
You can find out what some of the small providers think at https://openmedia.org/
I know TekSavvy is part of the group, not sure who else.
Yeah, there’s a single line that says, “some independent carriers raised concerns that it would make it more difficult for them to compete against larger players,” which is vague.
I recall Tek had a problem with a court decision upholding some rule by the CRTC but I think it was about rates (too high) and I think it was older than this.
