You are trying to bring a balance between having healthy innovation in the industry and at the same time protecting the public and trying to make sure the industry players do not abuse their economic position. But both of those are okay--not just one but both.
Here, you've mentioned the vertical integration, and what you're talking about is contract exclusivity. Is that a likely threat? Is it really...? That's a big gamble to take.
For example, let's take what you're saying. You mentioned hockey, I believe, and then you said you can only watch hockey if you have a Bell phone. That means (a) Bell has to pay for the hockey rights, and (b) it does not resell them to anybody else but keeps them to itself for a guaranteed income in the hope that people will leave their carrier in order to come to them to watch hockey. That's a big gamble. If their case is wrong, they lose a lot of money, so it's a strategy that few people pursue.
Secondly, one of the reasons we called the hearing is exactly for that reason: to look at these issues to see if they are real. Are they likely to occur? Are the tools we have sufficient to deal with them or do we need to establish different rules? That's precisely why we have called the hearing.