https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/deceptive-unacceptable-unfair-business-trade-practices-unreliable-internet-access
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/class-action-suit-against-bell-sympatico
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/unfair
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/bell-internet
http://anyonecare.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/bell-bce-sympatico
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/is-your-isp-still-even-watching-you
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/the-war-against-bell
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/bell-throttles-internet-speeds
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/and
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/consumers-affairs
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/bell-lied
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/i-cannot-trust-you-for-you-lie-to-me-all-the-time
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/basic-contract-law
http://witnessed.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/this-next-was-so-predictable-even-by-me-too
http://postedat.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/pay-back-revenge/
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/federal-consumer-protection-ha-ha-ha/
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/crtc-is-clearly-in-bells-bad-pocket/
https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/commissioner-for-complaints-for-telecommunications-services/
PS: Also the Companies from different markets — or that themselves span multiple markets — can make more money in some instances by tying their offerings together, so that in order to use one, you also have to use the other. Although the approach is not without the occasional advantage for the consumer (cable companies say their practice of bundling stations encourages niche programming, for instance), consumers mostly chafe when their choice of a certain product or service restricts their choice in another area. ’Triple play’ packages for internet, phone and television – If your company owns technology for delivering television or telephone service, the internet represents a horrible monster set on destroying your market with its capacity to deliver all kinds of media over a single pipe. That’s why, if you’re smart, you bundle these offerings into packages that seem to offer lower costs, but in fact bind consumers to expensive habits — hopefully, for years to come, from these companies’ perspective. If you’re paying for phone and television along with your internet, you’re almost certainly less likely to.
ISPs and content providers, or Cellphone carriers and cellphone manufacturers Most people know that the only reason you don’t pay the true cost of your cellphone hardware is that you have to sign a lengthy contract with a cellphone provider — a situation that is exacerbated by exclusive hardware contracts such as the one Apple signed with AT&T for the iPhone. If you want to use this particular piece of hardware, you have to use its exclusive partner or unlock your phone, voiding its warranty and risking having it “bricked” from afar as punishment for allowing the device to operate outside of its original network. Cooperation between cellphone manufacturers and service providers is nice, in that it lowers the initial cost of phones, but it has led to an inefficient market that discourages consumer choice, unless you count the option to switch networks and throw out your hardware every year or two. And this isn’t just about cellphones — the same is happening with netbooks. The relationship between carrier and manufacturer even extends to which apps your phone is permitted to run (see Google Voice and SlingPlayer).
Obama’s anti-trust cop Christine Varney is dusting off the Sherman Act and reviewing wireless companies’ exclusive handset deals–most notably AT&T’s monopoly control over Apple’s iPhone. The US Congress is starting to wonder whether it’s fair business. Four senators—Kerry, Wicker, Dorgan, and Klobuchar—have sent a letter to the FCC requesting an examination of the wireless industry and whether this whole exclusivity thing is kosher. And the commerce committee is corralling a bunch of wireless execs and researchers in Washington. They’ll chat about exclusivity and question whether it limits competition. It’s the first step in what could be a regulatory road; one that could result in major shake-ups inside the cell industry. Congress is bringing this up now because rural cell phone companies have complained that exclusivity agreements are unfair to small carriers. When the national bullies have exclusive rights to a phone, the rural cousins do also have to peddle inferior devices. The Justice Department may also review whether telecom carriers are unduly restricting the types of services other companies can offer on their networks and what is Canada, the CRTC doing as well? Nothing good!
You must be logged in to post a comment.