Interventions Phase 2: Intervenor 383

Document Name: 2015-134.226698.2518879.Interventions Phase 2(1hzkv01!).html

In a country so proud of fairness and compassion, it seems so very wrong that access to the internet is dependent on one's financial status. How did we get to the point where two multi-national conglomerate corporations are in the position to monopolise the ISP market in this country? Where they alone dictate the minimum reasonable access to our national, provincial, and local governmental and social infrastructure? In an economy where basic needs living expenses are often not fully covered by the fruits of even double-income households, the issue of universal, government backed minimum access to the internet is just as important as housing and income supplementation for those who fall into the low-income category.With utilities (both public and private) turning to online customer service and account access, or so-called paperless relationships, and with the trend of commercial enterprise moving away from brick-and-mortar models to online sales and marketing, it seems imperative that we, as Canadians, recognize that gatekeepers like Bell and Rogers are stacking the deck against the poor, with an 'if you want it, pay for it' approach to something we very nearly cannot live without. And in the case of the few, more reasonably priced local competitors to these telecom giants, access to the underlying communications infrastructure and technology is still limited by one's wallet.My disdain for capitalism notwithstanding, allowing these corporations to maintain the leverage over 'consumers' that they currently enjoy is tantamount to ignoring our well-founded anti-monopoly laws. The semantic arguments about two such telecom giants actually competing against one another, instead of being complicit in gouging Canadians for access to what may rightly be called a basic need are just not convincing.