Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



Bell Canada Shuts Down Crappy Video Store That No One Used... But It's Still Throttling

from the well-look-at-that dept

Just about a year ago, we pointed out that Bell Canada was facing scrutiny for its decision to force traffic shaping on all of its resellers, often without letting them know... and yet, at nearly the same time, it launched its own crappy online video store. The whole thing seemed odd. First, Bell claimed it needed to shape traffic to deal with congestion... but then it had no problem launching its own video store that would have no traffic shaping. That certainly seems like anticompetitive behavior. Yet, as we pointed out at the time, it was difficult to believe that the Bell online video store would get any usage at all. It had an extremely limited selection, high prices and buggy Microsoft DRM. What a bargain?

Apparently, it took all of a year for Bell Canada to realize that it wasn't getting any use whatsoever, and Joe McEnaney points out that Bell Canada has quietly shut down the site... though, it's still throttling traffic from resellers. Maybe, next time, instead of trying to limit competitors and offer something crappy, Bell could spend its resources investing in bandwidth. That would have made everyone a lot happier.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 15th, 2009 @ 11:29pm

    Taking another week and a half off to see first hand how they do this stuff in Sweden.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Dan, Jun 15th, 2009 @ 11:34pm

    If a tree falls in the forest ------------------. It seems that monopoly really is not a business model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2009 @ 4:44am

    Re:

    Since Bell isn't a monopoly (at worst a duopoly, but realistically a triopoly), your point is meaningless.

    Customers always have a choice, and with the arrival of 3.5g services in many areas, the choices just got bigger.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2009 @ 5:21am

    choice

    unfortunately it's not much of a choice when everyone is throttling or leasing bandwidth from a throttling company.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Designerfx (profile), Jun 16th, 2009 @ 5:31am

    Re: Re:

    isn't bell the one who holds the monopoly on all the tier 1 ISP's and throttled them recently?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2009 @ 7:55am

    Something all businesses in their position should learn...

    They're in the business of providing bandwidth, not in the business of providing something nobody wants and taking away what they do want.

    The truth is, no major ISP will see increased profit from a stunt like this. What they gain in online video viewings, they'll lose in monthly internet subscriptions if they traffic shape.

    Not to mention the other truth, which is that most people with connections fast enough to stream online movies once a time for a fee already know they can stream them elsewhere infinitely for free.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 16th, 2009 @ 8:26am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Nope. Bell controls ONLY the DSL, and only in parts of Canada. DSL resellers all get treated the same way.

    Bell has no control over cable, sat-link, wireless, or 3.5g wireless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 5:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Nope. Bell controls ONLY the DSL, and only in parts of Canada.

    So, Bell holds a monopoly over DSL in those areas.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    sikiş, Jul 1st, 2009 @ 2:56am

    re:re:

    They're in the business of providing bandwidth, not in the business of providing something nobody wants and taking away what they do want. The truth is, no major ISP will see increased profit from a stunt like this. What they gain in online video viewings, they'll lose in monthly internet subscriptions if they traffic shape. Not to mention the other truth, which is that most people with connections fast enough to stream online movies once a time for a fee already know sikiş they can stream them elsewhere infinitely for free.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This