The population density here is larger yet the price for UNLIMITED Internet service is extremely affordable. Just as Bell's network was funded by the public, so was Deutsche Telekom's. What you've completely ignored is that in Canada, it is only the DENSELY populated areas actually have access to broadband services, so you're completely wrong.
Bandwidth costs almost nothing; building capacity is where the costs comes in and right now, the costs would involve upgrading as Bell isn't interested in serving less densely populated rural areas because it's not profitable.
Wrong again. People don't have the option anymore to shop around, because Bell is now using their friends in the CRTC to make their competitors less competitive.
Wrong again. This is not an acceptable analogy because rent is controlled by market prices and inflation. Prices for bandwidth and the technologies used to provide broadband Internet service have been dropping for years. In other countries with more of a free market model, even those using legacy telecom lines, are seeing the price for Internet service become more and more affordable.
Theorists? I'm certainly not a theorist with a long history and education in Computer Science from a prestigious university. With record profits, Bell Canada Enterprises sure hasn't improved their service and in fact, many customers report a deterioration in many aspects including the throttling of encrypted traffic and downloading large files.
And finally, wrong again on your 'theory' that 'lighter' users would see lower costs. Since when has Bell actually lowered the costs for people using less bandwidth? A friend of mine in Toronto went on vacation for 3 1/2 weeks and guess what? His Internet bill didn't magically decrease.
You sound like someone working for Bell's PR department.
Of course it's affordable there. Less cost, less infrastructure to upgrade and maintain, AND more users to split the bill. I have certainly not ignored that the densely populated areas of Canada are the ones with the best infrastructure, that is actually my point. When people drag in OECD arguments, have they taken into account the less populated areas? Not likely. Many rural areas in Canada have no choice but to get service from Bell. Some have no choice for high speed service except from Rogers. Or Shaw.
People will always have the option to shop around. Just as all companies, including Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw, and even Teksavvy will have to create affordable services or else have less income. Last time I checked, prices for internet service are also controlled by the market and inflation, and even independent ISP's call it "renting" from the incumbents, so either you aren't really listening to the argument or latching onto certain facts and ignoring others.
Congratulations on your Computer Science degree. Let me know when you've earned a business one, one that understands business in Canada. The exact fact that people are reporting a deterioration in services is why all this is happening. For several years now.
Lighter users are being offered lighter packages, and pay less. That doesn't sound like a theory to me. I would suggest to your friend who was on vacation for 3 1/2 weeks to call his internet provider and see what options he had.
I'm someone who is a little more informed than the average internet troll, which is what you sound like. Why are you so concerned about something that since you are living in an entirely different country, has no effect on you?
You are also, like so many others, getting your data from several years ago.