And why would duopolists allow others to carry traffic on their infrastructure? Thus it applies to those that lease it, how else could they get access to the infrastructure in the first place?
All I'm getting from the section above is that you basically confirmed what I said but specifically mentioning that it also applies to cable connections.
The leases are a scam, since in a free market, other operators that wanted to provide Internet service would be able to run their own cables (or fiber optics) to whatever customers. But the question came up about who owns the poles and the easements - things that were created when we had regulated monopolies. UTOS tosses that protection out the door.
Of course, if someone leases a line, they should be able to use it to the maximum - but the duopolists made the case to the CRTC based on their false claims that the independents were causing major network calamities because of unlimited downloads, and were littered with rampant P2P piracy operations. Of course, this was a premise filled with fail because these things were nothing, since the lines were leased anyways, and that P2P traffic and piracy is an insignificant fraction of total traffic. The fact stands that the duopolists did this to curb the incursion of "competition", not of small ISPs that provide specialist services, but to build walls to prevent entities like NetFlix from streaming video that would destroy the duopolists other business interests - namely the broadcasting and content that they now control in this country.
It applies to any connection, or any packet, that crosses the networks of any of the major ISPs. So maybe your end connection is Cable, but if the local cable operator makes any connection to one of the major backbones, or if someone wants a .CA address - this decision means that the ISPs have the right to add layers of charges to the cable operators. This decision would not apply if an ISP made no connection in Canada, like pulling their Internet ramp from the US, or from Satillite.
Of course, the problem isn't "pay per GB", or metering - but rather, that the CRTC has made provision for the major ISPs to open up all contracts and make changes, not only to their customers, but to other companies customers - and to collect an outrageous fee per GB that is far out of proportion with the true cost of a GB of data.
It is also a major problem when it comes to "progress", since nations that are hungry for business and development have already installed networks that are far superior to our dreck - and in some cases, they decided that those speeds are not good enough, and are scrapping them for even better technology. Meanwhile, Canada lumbers along with cruddy DSL that is one of the highest cost services for what is entirely obsolete and unsatisfactory technology.
There are other issues with the CRTC and their attempt to make an Internet policy - that they may not have any actual jurisdiction since the Internet is not Radio or Television. Other problems include issues like "throttling" (where ISPs fraudulently sell high-speed for services that are not high-speed at all), and "traffic shaping", both of which are open to abuse by the ISPs, because it would be easy for them to "prefer" certain sites for cash payola - while the sites that you and I want to use may not be "preferred" and will be slower because the speed has been throttled and shaped. I think we also should have concern over the practice of "deep packet inspection" - stuff that the major ISPs are doing not to fulfill some task of law enforcement, but to cultivate even more throttling and shaping to shut down their competitors, while "enhancing" their services.
I think the Government got the hint - that the CRTC is an old boys club of the clueless, who make their decisions bases on the words and payola of big business interests - and who see nothing wrong with encouraging an array of anti-competitive practices that victimize regular folk.