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

from the well-look-at-that dept

Mon, Jun 15th 2009 11:16pm — Mike Masnick

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.

Filed Under: canada, online video, throttling
Companies: bell canada

9 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 15 Jun 2009 @ 11:29pm

Taking another week and a half off to see first hand how they do this stuff in Sweden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 15 Jun 2009 @ 11:34pm

If a tree falls in the forest ------------------. It seems that monopoly really is not a business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Designerfx (profile), 16 Jun 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?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2009 @ 5:21am

choice
unfortunately it's not much of a choice when everyone is throttling or leasing bandwidth from a throttling company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sikiş, 1 Jul 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]