> Your complaint seemed to be entirely based upon the difficulties in getting broadband in a sparsely populated area.

No, it is mostly centered around Bell playing dirty. Getting broadband in a sparsely populated area is just an example of how they use their resources. Using the legal system to put the squeeze on other ISPs is another.

> And then some big telco coming in to try to undermine it.

If the big telco is the only game in town then that changes matters considerably.

> We've seen the same story again and again, over the globe. There is nothing unique to Canada in that.

I live in a rural European area right now, where I live I can choose from > 10 broadband providers with packages up to 20 Mbit/sec.

> As to Bell being a monopoly, that's a bit laughable of a concept now.

Bell still has an effective monopoly on infrastructure and that is what this article is about, charges that Bell levies on ISPs that are more or less forced to do business with Bell, we're not talking about a consumer monopoly, even though they still profit plenty from their former monopoly in that field.

> As to Canada's situation, it regularly ranks in the top tier of broadband penetration and broadband speeds.

The situation here is somewhat skewed because a large amount of the Canadian population lives in a very small total area of the country.

> It sounds like you're the one using your anecdote inappropriately, because actual metrics refute you.

No, it just underscores the issue. For the record, I've also lived in Toronto (King Street) and it is the contrast between the two that strikes me as placing the rural areas at a deliberate disadvantage. If anything Bell should do everything in its power to level the playing field given the monetary advantages they've been allowed to have.

> You're conflating issues. Because of the in-the-ground angle, companies are allowed to terminate twisted-pairs at the switching station, providing their own voice or data services. We recently hooked up a backup high-speed ADSL line, the line provided by Bell, with the data provided by Cogent. There is nothing changing in that.

Exactly. So how much choice did cogent have in using Bell infrastructure in order to reach you?

> What is changing is if Bogent terminated that line, but instead of providing their own infrastructure they simply leached off of Bell's. That was put in during the "Soviet style" control.

They did not 'leach of Bells', they have very little choice. Bell owns the roads, if you want your cars on them you'll have to pay toll.

> Again, this is all a bunch of people inventing a reality where they can have their free lunch.

I really disagree with you there, if they were free to lay their own fiber then that would be one thing but as long as they have no way around Bell they should not be squeezed like this.