Giorno: 27 Febbraio 2025

Minimum Courier Charge Increase: Who is the Government Protecting?

KUALA LUMPUR, 27th February 2025—The Consumer Choice Center Malaysia, through its representative, Tarmizi Anuwar, has questioned the government’s decision to implement the Reference Price Guidelines for courier services, which take effect on 1 December 2024. These guidelines recommend increasing the minimum price for deliveries under 2kg da RM4.00 to RM5.00.

Deputy Minister of Communications Teo Nie Ching, recently stated that these guidelines are not mandatory and merely serve as a reference for the industry. However, Tarmizi argues that while they may not be legally binding, such guidelines still harm the market and consumers.

“Although the government claims this is just a guideline and not a mandatory directive, courier companies can use these recommended prices to justify raising their service charges. This will burden consumers, especially small businesses and online sellers who rely on competitive shipping costs,” said Tarmizi.

He also emphasized that this move reduces competition in the market, as courier companies will no longer be incentivized to offer lower prices to attract customers. This deprives consumers of the opportunity to access cheaper services and negatively impacts the growth of the e-commerce industry.

Additionally, these guidelines do not encourage improvements in service quality. “If courier companies are not required to compete on pricing, they may be less motivated to enhance efficiency and service quality. In the end, consumers will not only pay more but also fail to receive the service improvements they deserve,” he added.

A study by Blackbox Research, titled Grasping the E-Commerce Opportunity in Southeast Asia, also found that delivery timeliness and high costs remain major concerns in rural areas, directly affecting the efficiency of e-commerce operations and consumer satisfaction in Malaysia.

“With the increase in the minimum delivery charge, rural consumers, especially in remote areas like Sabah and Sarawak, where logistical access is already limited, will face even higher costs without any guarantee of improved services,” he noted.“This move not only raises costs for consumers but also does not ensure any enhancement in service quality. Therefore, policies that focus more on competition and innovation within the courier industry should be prioritized to ensure more efficient and affordable services for consumers,” he concluded.

Bahaya Kebijakan Larangan Impor Pangan 2025

Kebijakan terkait pangan kerap menjadi topik yang penuh dengan pro dan kontra. Tidak bisa dipungkiri bahwa, kebijakan pangan merupakan hal yang sangat sensitif, dan memiliki dampak yang besar pada hampir seluruh lapisan masyarakat. Oleh karena itu, para politisi hampir pasti menjadikan kebijakan pangan fokus utama dalam platform kebijakan kampanye yang mereka lakukan untuk mendapatkan suara masyarakat.

Umumnya, platform kebijakan pangan yang kerap diadvokasi para politisi di Indonesia selalu memiliki corak nasionalisme dan kedaulatan pangan. Beberapa waktu lalu misalnya, dalam rapat terbatas di Istana Negara, presiden Prabowo Subianto menyatakan bahwa Indonesia akan menghentikan impor pangan di tahun 2025 dengan capaian target sekitar tahun 2027 (bisnis.com, 30/12/2024).

Kebijakan pelarangan impor sendiri merupakan salah satu kebijakan yang kerap menimbulkan kontroversi, karena berpotensi besar akan membawa dampak negatif terhadap konsumen, seperti kenaikan harga dan dampak lainnya. Hal ini semakin krusial mengingat barang yang dikenakan merupakan produk pangan yang sangat esensial. Oleh karena itu, tidak sedikit pihak yang mengungkapkan kekhawatiran dari kebijakan penutupan impor pangan ini.

Pengajar dan peneliti Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII) misalnya, mengatakan bahwa ada beberapa risiko yang akan terjadi dan harus diperhitungkan dari keputusan untuk menutup impor pangan. Aspek permintaan dan penawaran misalnya, akan berpotensi menjadi tidak seimbang (tempo.co, 10/1/2025).

Untuk bahan pangan seperti jagung misalnya, di tahun 2024 lalu sebesar 19,5 juta ton, sementara kebutuhan domestik di tahun ini diperkirakan berjumlah 21 juta ton. Demikian juga produksi garam domestik misalnya, yang tahun lalu hanya 2 juta ton, sementara proyeksi kebutuhan dalam negeri tahun 2025 mencapai 4,2 juta ton. Dengan demikian, kebijakan penutupan impor pangan juga akan membuat harga pangan mengalami inflasi, dan akan menambahkan beban masyarakat berpenghasilan rendah (tempo.co, 10/1/2025).

Selain itu, yang sangat penting untuk diperhatikan adalah kita akan bergantung pada produksi pangan lokal yang sangat rentan terhadap berbagai faktor, seperti bencana alam dan dampak perubahan iklim. Curah hujan di Indonesia yang tidak menentu akan menghasilkan kekeringan dan juga bisa menurunkan hasil panen (tempo.co, 10/1/2025).

Pada 2024 lalu misalnya, Indonesia sempat mengalami penurunan produksi beras, dari 31,10 juta ton di tahun 2023 misalnya, menjadi 30,62 juta ton di tahun 2024. Penurunan ini disebabkan karena ada faktor iklim, salah satunya adalah El Nino yang berkepanjangan. Apabila kita hanya mengandalkan produksi dalam negeri, maka kita akan bergantung pada kondisi iklim tersebut di Indonesia (cnnindonesia.com, 4/2/2025).

Dampak dari pelarangan impor pangan juga tidak hanya dirasakan oleh konsumen dalam negeri, tetapi juga oleh sektor industri. Bila industri pengolahan pangan tidak bisa menggunakan bahan pangan impor, seperti garam misalnya, maka biaya produksi akan semakin meningkat. Dengan demikian, bukan tidak mungkin akan terjadi pemutusan hubungan kerja (PHK) massal, dan daya saing Indonesia dengan negara tetangga seperti Thailand dan Vietnam menjadi semakin berkurang (tirto.id, 10/1/2025).

Untuk komoditas jagung misalnya, bukan hanya menjadi komoditas yang dikonsumsi oleh konsumen, tetapi juga digunakan oleh para peternak untuk pakan hewan-hewan ternak mereka khususnya ayam. Jika impor jagung ditutup, dan ketersediannya menajdi berkurang, maka harga pakan ternak tersebut akan menjadi meningkat, dan juga akan berpengaruh pada produk-produk turunannya, seperti telur dan daging ayam (tempo.co, 8/1/2025).

Kita sendiri juga bisa belajar dari pengalaman kegagalan kebijakan larangan impor pangan yang pernah dilakukan beberapa tahun lalu. Peneliti dari Center of Reform on Economics (CORE) Indonesia mengungkapkan bahwa, pada tahun 2016 lalu pemerintah Indonesia pernah melarang impor jagung (tirto.id, 10/1/2025). Akibatnya, jagung mengalami kelangkaan, dan setelah terjadi protes, pemerintah memutuskan kembali untuk membuka keran impor tanpa kuota di tahun 2019 (antaranews.com, 4/2/2019).

Belum lagi, saat ini pemerintah telah melaksanakan program makan siang gratis untuk seluruh sekolah di Indonesia, yang juga merupakan salah satu janji program presiden saat kampanye tahun lalu. Program makan siang gratis di sekolah-sekolah tersebut tentu merupakan program yang membutuhkan sumber daya yang sangat besar, untuk bisa dinikmati oleh seluruh anak sekolah di Indonesia.

Dengan demikian, program makan siang gratis ini berpotensi besar akan berkontribusi pada kenaikan harga pangan di Indonesia. Bila impor pangan ditutup, maka ketersediaan pangan di pasar berpotensi akan semakin berkurang, dan harga pangan akan semakin melonjak naik (sindonews.com, 15/8/2024).

Sebagai penutup, ketersediaan pangan dengan harga yang terjangkau untuk masyarakat tentu harus menjadi fokus utama para pemangku kebijakan ketika merumuskan kebijakan terkait pangan. Jangan sampai, karena upaya untuk swasembada pangan, lantas masyarakat, khususnya yang berpenghasilan menengah ke bawah, dan juga para pekerja industri, yang terkena dampak negatif dari kebijakan tersebut.

Originariamente pubblicato qui

London commuter train station named one of the best in Europe

UN Londra train station was named one of the best stations in Europe – the only UK station to make the top 10 list. 

With the daily grind marred by train delays, it’s too easy to forget that many of the railway stations boast shops and restaurants designed to make the travel experience more bearable. 

London Bridge is one of these stations, according to experts at the Washington DC-based Consumer Choice Center. 

The experts ranked dozens of stations across European cities such as London, Berlin, Parigi, Amsterdam and Roma.

London Bridge was the only UK station to make the top ten cut.

It scored 85 out of 118 points and was in the tie-ten spot with Leipzig main station, according to the European Railway Station Index 2024.

Leggi il testo completo qui

Issa, House Colleagues Launch Reform of Third-Party Financed Civil Litigation

Congressman Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence and the Internet, has joined colleagues in reintroducing legislation to regulate third-party financed civil litigation.

The Republican who represents East County was joined by Rep. Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin and Rep. Mike Collins of Georgia in introducing the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025.

This proposed legislation — like that Issa also put forth in October 2024 — would require the disclosure of parties receiving payment in civil lawsuits.

Issa’s office said that in hundreds of cases yearly and with increasing frequency, civil litigation is being funded by undisclosed third-party interests as an investment for return — including from hedge funds, commercial lenders, and sovereign wealth funds operating through shell companies.

Third-party litigation funding also poses unique challenges in patent litigation cases, where investor-backed entities often seek large settlements against American companies, distorting the market and stifling innovation, according to the bills sponsors.

Leggi il testo completo qui

Mississippi can get it right on mobile sports betting

For the second year in a row, the Mississippi House has advanced legislation to legalize mobile sports betting in the state. House Bill 1302, the Mississippi Mobile Sports Wagering Act, which includes a 12% tax on online sports wagers, addresses several concerns that condannato similar legislation in 2024 and provides for a $6 million fund to support brick-and-mortar casinos in the state, as well as critical infrastructure. Consumers want to place sports bets, the question for Mississippi is where they’ll allow residents to do it and how much illicit online betting they’re willing to accept before establishing a legal avenue. 

The argument against mobile sports betting has always been split between shielding casino revenues and protecting consumers from the potential harms of gambling addiction. Chiefly, lawmakers worry that allowing people to wager from home will cut into the bottom line of the state’s brick-and-mortar casinos, which themselves are a bet by the state on tax revenue gains. This led to the inclusion of a provision in HB 1302 setting up a Retail Sports Wagering Protection Fund to cover shortfalls for casinos that experience dips in their annual revenue. 

Mississippi already allows in-person sports betting as of 2018,  meaning that the infrastructure exists for sportsbooks to partner with local casinos and offer mobile betting options under a new legal framework.

The demand is undeniable. A consumer rapporto from Paysafe showed that amongst 1,700 sports betting consumers and those interested in betting, 65 percent were interested in mobile options versus 46 percent for in-person gambling. Since the start of the NFL season, Mississippi registrato 8.7 million attempts by residents to access legal mobile sportsbooks elsewhere. 

This leads consumers into shady online interactions with offshore betting operations where data is not kept safe and credit cards are fair game for placing bets. This can be hugely damaging for consumers. The New York Times segnalato on how several New York gambling firms were illegally accepting lower-division football and basketball bets, and at least two states ignored credit card usage in the system. 

Bad actors must be weeded out of these markets and legal frameworks are the first step. 

The alternative is prohibition and turning a blind eye to what your people are doing in the absence of a regulated market. An effective regulatory regime accounts for the kind of consumer behavior lawmakers can reasonably anticipate and then keeps those people as safe as possible without removing adults’ right to make adult choices. 

Like in Iowa & Tennessee, HB 1302 bars the use of credit cards in online bets, and requires age verification for players, a policy piloted by Pennsylvania & Michigan. The bill allows for up to two online betting services to partner with a local casino in order to operate. The $6 million protection fund exists to serve the smaller Mississippi casinos that might not acquire online betting partners. 

Much has been done to account for consumer protection and the investments made in brick-and-mortar casinos in the state.  

Rep. Casey Eure, who spearheaded the legislation, made it clear that HB 1302 was designed to respect the interests of brick-and-mortar casinos while bringing Mississippi into the modern era of sports betting. An overwhelming bipartisan approval of 88-10 in the House is nothing to balk at, and it keeps Mississippi proactive in managing a valuable tax revenue stream. 

The region’s casinos are increasingly lucrative and a source of employment for nearly 50,000 Mississippians, but there’s a looming generational shadow that points toward young people being less likely to frequent physical casinos. It’s not that Millennials and Gen Z don’t bet, they do, they’re simply not on track to replace the older demographic typically found in a Biloxi casino at 10 PM on a Friday night. 

Even conservative estimates suggest that Mississippi is losing between $40 million and $80 million annually in potential tax revenue by keeping mobile sports betting illegal. That’s revenue that could be improving roads, funding education, and strengthening local economies, particularly those with smaller casinos delivering less than anticipated tax revenue.

The future of sports betting and gaming is mobile, and real improvements have been made to the sports betting proposals on the table since 2024. The best outcome for Mississippi consumers is a regulated market that takes consumer protection seriously, involves buy-in from physical casinos and ultimately respects the right of every adult to make financial and entertainment choices for themselves.

Originariamente pubblicato qui

DeepDive: Canada should get rid of supply management once and for all. Here’s a plan to do it

In the context of the Trump administration’s threat of tariffs on Canada and the possible renegotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Canada’s system of supply management for dairy, poultry, and eggs is under renewed scrutiny.

Trump’s pick for commerce secretary has argued that Canada treats American dairy farmers unfairly. The president himself has previously made similar claims.

They have a point. Canada’s system of supply management imposes tariffs on U.S. farmers for chicken, turkey, eggs, and dairy products, between 150 percent and 300 percent. If Donald Trump’s 25 percent tariff threat is a problem, so too is our supply management policy.

Yet in recent days, the Trudeau government has signaled that it won’t make any concessions on its system of quotas, price-setting mechanisms, and import tariffs.

This DeepDive discusses the persistent problems with the supply management system and presents a path forward. It is increasingly clear that this system not only serves Canadian consumers poorly but also harms Canada’s international trade interests. The time for change is now.

What is supply management?

Supply management is an agricultural policy framework for dairy, poultry, and eggs that dates back to the early 1970s. It operates through three main mechanisms: production quotas, import controls, and a cost-of-production formula.

The system dictates how much each farmer can produce through quotas. The concept behind controlling supply in this way is for supply to meet demand without leading to surpluses or shortages. Farmers must own or lease a quota to produce, which adds a layer of control over who can not only enter the market but also how much they can actually produce.

One of the mechanisms to control the flow of dairy into the Canadian market is import controls, which are tariffs on imported goods over a specific threshold. Under the current system of supply management, a limited amount of products from foreign markets can be imported at a lower tariff or zero tariff rate using a system of tariff rate quotas (TRQ). The thresholds vary by product to product and by the trade deal governing the relationship between the exporting country and Canada such as USMCA, Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Regardless of the trade deal in question, the TRQ limits are small and ensure that the Canadian market for these products is almost entirely Canadian. The tariffs under supply management are as follows:

Dairy:

  • Tariffs on products like butter, milk, and cheese above the TRQ limits can be as high as 241 percent. While the rate varies, it is generally between 200 percent and slightly higher than 300 percent.

Turkey and chicken:

  • Tariffs on chicken imports above the TRQ can reach 289 percent, and on turkey imports, they are around 165 percent.

Egg and egg products:

  • For egg and egg product imports above the TRQ limit tariffs range between 150 percent and 164 percent.

The cost-of-production aspect of supply management ensures that prices are fixed to cover the farmer’s cost of production and what is considered a “reasonable” profit margin.

Leggi il testo completo qui

Why is the government paying to lobby itself? It’s time to end this corrupt process

Donald Trump sent shockwaves through the U.S. NGO ecosystem with his executive order which pauses federal funding, pending review, for organizations that are deemed to be “undermining national security.” What falls in this category is opaque, but generally speaking, the premise is that funding is paused until the Trump administration can review how money is being spent, specifically to ensure they aren’t using taxpayer money to fund organizations that undermine Trump’s policies. Regardless of what you might think of President Trump, the logic of this does make sense.

Ironically enough the same issue is also making headlines in Europe right now as well, where the European Commission has concesso that public funds have been used to fund NGOs who turn around and lobby MEPs for policy change.

Why does this matter for Canada? Well, it matters because we have this very same problem here in Canada, especially when it comes to public health lobbying.

In October, the self-appointed guardians of public health, Physicians For A Smoke-Free Canada, marched on Parliament Hill, demanding the resignation of Ya’ara Saks, minister of addictions, for her alleged failure to crack down on the vaping industry. They called for an end to all flavoured vapes, insisting that only tobacco flavour should be permitted, despite the fact that smokers trying to quit overwhelmingly rely on flavours to ditch cigarettes. Making vapes taste like the product people are trying to quit is a ludicrous proposition if there ever was one. Why should a product without tobacco mimic its noxious flavor, especially when it’s meant to help smokers quit, and 95 percent less harmful than smoking?

From the perspective of harm reduction, their crusade is a regressive misstep. The very essence of vaping is to provide an alternative to smoking, not to replicate its sensory experience. Yet, these activists, armed with myths about vaping’s efficacy in smoking cessation, push for policies that would make quitting harder, not easier.

The irony here is as thick as the smoke they seek to banish. Organizations like Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, which one might think would celebrate any smoke-free alternative, are curiously funded by the government, in an almost identical way as in Europe. In a dance of circular lobbying, this group, receiving up to 95 percent of its funding from public coffers, lobbies the same government for policy changes. This is not charity; this is an orchestrated echo chamber where taxpayer money funds the very advocacy that seeks to control taxpayer behaviour.

What we see here is not just a waste of public funds but a perversion of democracy. When the government pays to lobby itself, it erodes the independence of civil society, manipulates public discourse, and masks political maneuvering as public health advocacy. In 2022, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, with more than half its revenue spent on just twoemployees’ salaries, exemplifies this corrupt process.

This circular “sock puppeting,” a term coined by Christopher Snowden at the Institute for Economic Affairs in London, isn’t limited to one organization, on one issue. Take the example of nicotine pouches, which don’t contain tobacco, don’t cause cancer, and are shown to not only be a useful tool to quit smoking but are also 99 percent less harmful than cigarettes. The Canadian Cancer Society, which received more than $27,000,000 from taxpayers in 2024, actively lobbied for heavy restrictions on this smoking cessation tool. Yes, the Canadian Cancer Society, while getting millions from taxpayers, turned around and lobbied Ottawa to restrict access to a product that doesn’t cause cancer.

Unfortunately, the same old song rings true on alcohol policy as well, where organizations historically tied to the prohibition movement peddle exaggerated risks about moderate alcohol consumption, again with you, the taxpayer, footing the bill for it.

The real scandal isn’t vape flavours, nicotine pouches, or alcohol-related pseudoscience; it’s the systemic corruption where the government funds its own critics to push policies against the public’s actual interest. This is not about health; it’s about control, disguised in the garb of concern. We should not, as taxpayers, fund our own fun policing, especially when it comes to the personal choices of adults.

This practice of self-lobbying must end. It’s unlikely to be ended by this government, especially with its narrowing shelf life, but it should be ended by the next. If Pierre Poilievre becomes Canada’s prime minister after the next election, he’ll have a fiscal mess to clean up, and circular lobbying should be one of the first cuts made. It’s time to call out these “sock puppets” for what they are—the fun police, funded by our own money, to limit our freedoms under the guise of protecting us.

Originariamente pubblicato qui

The time to tear down internal trade barriers is now

Canadians and Americans are holding their breath as they wait to learn if they will have to deal with 25 per cent tariffs on the goods they buy every day.

In response to the threat of tariffs, Canadian premiers have stepped up with their own ideas about how to respond to Donald Trump’s tariff threats, from Danielle Smith’s insistence that a more diplomatic approach is necessary, to Doug Ford’s approach of threatening to cut off various sources of American trade in Ontario.

There has been much talk about a Team Canada approach with regards to tariffs. But how can there even be a Team Canada when the provinces can’t agree to trade freely with one another?

This tariff debacle should be the sobering wake up call to all provincial premiers that international trade partners should not be seen as unwavering allies, and that diversifying trade is essential to maintaining economic prosperity.

One obvious place to start is looking within our own house, and breaking down the trade barriers that preposterously continue to exist between Canadian provinces.

The refrain has long been that eliminating interprovincial trade barriers is an insurmountable task.

Section 121 of the Constitution states “all Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.” This is clear language, and should mean that we are a unified nation — one country, with one market.

However, despite this clear language in the Constitution, trade barriers continue to be high.

Former Canadian Chamber of Commerce president Perrin Beatty has stated there are many different levels of barriers to tackle, including mobility barriers and commercial barriers, some of which have existed since confederation.

According to a recent post on X by former policy advisor to Québec’s Minister of Finance Jean Philippe Fournier, even though the political will existed at a certain point in Quebec (notably, the province that is most closed off to interprovincial trade), the minister was stopped from dropping barriers by the realization that each province was creating regulations in silos without taking into consideration the actions of other provinces.

These rules ended up creating niche interest groups of companies who adapted to these regulations and would lobby the government not to standardize with other provinces so they could stay in business.

And despite text in Section 121 that reads clearly, the Supreme Court of Canada’s restrictive interpretation of it has taken out all its teeth. Section 121 was considered in the Supreme Court case of R. v. Comeau, which involved a man who bought some beer for personal consumption in Quebec and brought it over the border to his home in New Brunswick. He was caught and handed a $300 ticket, and took his case all the way to the Supreme Court with the help of the legal charity the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

While Gerard Comeau had success at the lower court, the Supreme Court found Section 121 does not allow absolute free trade across provinces.

Provinces can adopt laws and regulations that restrict trade if they show the overall aim is for another purpose, like “public health.” This has allowed provinces to impose all kinds of trade restrictions under the guise of some other purpose.

This was an unfortunate result that should be seen as inconsistent with the plain reading of the constitution, but could easily be addressed through political action.

Provinces could choose to enact freer trade, which would unite us as a country during this time of deep economic uncertainty. The political will to tackle interprovincial trade appears to be getting stronger. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre recently released a video questioning why it’s easier to trade with other countries than within Canada itself.

Reports also show the federal government and the premiers are finally having conversations about the positive effects of breaking down these barriers.

Team Canada and “Buy Canadian” are not complete until buying Canadian means having free trade to do exactly that within the borders of our own country.

Originariamente pubblicato qui

“All the political parties now pretend they’re farmer parties”: Lessons learned in EU ag policy

The backlash and subsequent scaling back of environmental policies affecting European agriculture offers a lesson for governments and political parties around the world, says a policy analyst with a European consumer advocacy group.

The European Union’s Strategia dal produttore al consumatore was introduced about five years ago, and included steep restrictions on pesticide and fertilizer use, reduction in overall land use, and requirements for increased organic production. It has since come under immense pressure due to concerns about rising food prices and hurting farmers’ livelihoods, as evidenced by widespread farmer protests in many EU countries over the past few years.

“We’re really now at a point where all the political parties pretend they’re farmer parties… I’m skeptical still, but we’re going in a better direction in a sense that we’ve realized our mistakes,” says Bill Wirtz, senior policy analyst of Consumer Choice Center, discussing what can be learned from the EU’s policy approach in this interview with RealAgriculture’s Amber Bell at the Crossroads Crop Conference in Edmonton, Alta.

Leggi il testo completo qui

Chancellor ‘is running out justifications’ as businesses are concerned over the economy

The Bank of England has reduced its UK growth forecast for 2025 from 1.5% to 0.75%, cutting interest rate on Thursday, in caution and leaving both consumers and businesses concerned about the UK’s economic prospects.

The Chancellor Rachel Reeves is being told that she is “running out of justifications” and she needs to reverse her tax policies.

Mike Salem, UK Country Associate for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), said, “Reeves is running out of justifications for causing such a sluggish economy.

“Labour has been in charge for seven months now, and we have seen no real positive consequences from their measures to tax everyone and everything.”

Salem added that consumers are worried, and this news will not bode well with those who are saving their money or those who want to spend and invest, leading to this limbo of effectively zero growth.

Leggi il testo completo qui

CRTC upholds wholesale fibre internet rules for now, will make final ruling in future

Canada’s telecommunications regulator has upheld for now its decision allowing the country’s largest providers to offer wholesale access to rivals’ networks outside their core serving regions.

But the CRTC said its announcement on Monday comes as it continues to assess long-term concerns about investment and competition, with a final decision still to be made.

The federal government had asked the commission to reconsider a portion of recently established rules surrounding wholesale fibre services, as Ottawa said it was concerned about the viability of smaller internet service providers to act as alternatives to the big players.

The CRTC opened a consultation into the matter in November.

A series of previous CRTC decisions paved the way for smaller internet providers to sell their services through fibre networks owned by companies such as Telus Corp. and BCE Inc.

In May of last year, the regulator began requiring Bell and Telus to give competitors — including both big and small companies — access to their fibre-to-the-home networks, in exchange for a fee. While those rules initially applied only in Ontario and Quebec, the CRTC then announced in August they would be extended to networks owned by telephone companies countrywide.

On Monday, the CRTC said consumers benefited from increased choice and “more intense competition” between providers when the initial rules took effect in Ontario and Quebec.

Leggi il testo completo qui

Dollar Tree’s Rise Sparks Community Backlash Across U.S.

The rise of discount retailers, particularly Dollar Tree, has become a point of contention in small communities across the U.S., with local economies grappling with the consequences of their proliferation.

Recently, the town of Washington, Maine, demonstrated this growing conflict as residents overwhelmingly voted for a six-month moratorium on any major non-residential projects, directly targeting the proposed opening of a Dollar General store. This decision reflects broader concerns shared among local residents about how such chains threaten the character of their community and the livelihood of independent businesses. Sean Donaghy and his wife Amy opened the Washington General Store back in 2015 and quickly became beloved fixtures within the community. But with the potential threat of Dollar General’s establishment, they rallied locals to oppose the move.

“It’s a place where people love to go, have a chat, get a hot coffee,” noted Kathleen Gross, fervently opposed to the development, emphasizing the store’s role as more than just a marketplace. It is, for many, the heart of the town. Residents worry about the impact of dollar stores on local jobs, business vitality, and the diversity of product offerings. They fear not only for the store’s fate but also the overall character of Washington.

Leggi il testo completo qui

it_ITIT
en_USEN pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE it_ITIT

Seguici

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

WASHINGTON

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

BRUXELLES

Rond Point Schuman 6, Box 5 Bruxelles, 1040, Belgio

LONDRA

Casa della Croce d'Oro, 8 Duncannon Street
Londra, WC2N 4JF, Regno Unito

KUALA LUMPUR

Blocco D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Level 3 - 5 Kuala Lumpur, 50470, Malesia

OTTAWA

718-170 Laurier Ave W Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CENTRO DI SCELTA DEL CONSUMATORE

Sempre dal Consumer Choice Center: ConsumatoriChamps.EU | LiberoTrade4us.org