Quote:
Originally Posted by freakinsaprikin
At the end of the day Shaw isn't a charity, they are a business. The only people they are accountable to are their shareholders.
Shaw is only responsible for making the most money it can, not making sure netflixs business model works by piggy backing off the ISP's infrastructural.
If Apple and Netflixs don't like it, they should start to provide internet service like Google is trying to do.
|
The conflict of interest arises from the fact that the internet company is also the cable distributor, and now also the broadcaster. They are using the argument of UBB to preserve their market in other areas, not because their internet network is on the verge of collapse.
Aside from their shareholders, they still need to answer to government and regulatory bodies to ensure that their actions aren't harmful to competition or consumers. UBB is/was on both counts, which is why the government stepped in and overruled the so-called regulator that is the CRTC (which is filled with ex-telecom cronies anyway).
I've got no problem with businesses maximizing profits. In fact, I'd love to see the market opened up to foreign competition and then we'll realize how badly we've been getting hosed on wireless, internet, etc. Shaw, Bell, Rogers all live in a regulatory bubble where they are protected from competition, and they use that protection to gouge consumers.
Let's not forget that this whole UBB controversy was started by the big telecom companies lobbying for regulations that would place retail-like caps on wholesale competitors, effectively denying them the ability to differentiate themselves and profit from offering a more competitive product than the big guys. Blatantly anti-competitive and monopolistic move.