I think the issue with respect to Bell providing IPTV should be framed around whether they should be allowed to enter that market at all seeing as they have an unfair advantage over competitors. If ISPs can enter any market and just under-cut the existing players, then it we're basically stating that any content-provider on the internet needs to also be an ISP just in order to compete with the players that are just waiting to enter the market (as soon as someone else proves that there is a market).
Bell cannot enter the TV market (one it's already in, albeit Satellite TV), because Netflix can't enter the ISP market?
I'll think you'll find that Netflix can enter that market if they so desire.
Bell are abusing a monopoly position? No, they are exploiting efficiencies of scale. Surely Rogers and Shaw, who provide cable TV and Internet are stiff competition in this area?!?
The idea is that Bell is the 'gatekeeper' to the internet for their customers. By hiking up their internet rates to make it more expensive to do something like stream NetFlix while at the same time introducing their own competing product that is exempt from those charges it comes close to (and probably is) using their position in one market to leverage another. My contention is that ISPs and content-providers should be required to be separate because there are multiple conflicts of interest there.
