Adrian BW is not a monopoly supplier as there are a large number of alternative suppliers of navigable water around the country. It is true that they have a local monopoly. i.e. they are the only supplier in the Hartford area. However this situations is quite normal in many industries and the monopolies commission have looked into it and have always taken the "broad" view.
Personally I think that the additional charge for wide boats should not apply to rivers (as defined in the BW act) but is reasonable for those who block up the canals requiring additional work by BW to close tunnels so they can pass through, dredge the channel to as wider profile and cut back overhanging trees. Of course BW doesn't know which boats will use the additional services so the 'service charge' has to be spread over all broad beam boats. Paul Adrian Stott wrote: > Since there are no alternative suppliers, such an > unfettered ability would allow BW to act arbitratily and unreasonably, > and to victimise particular users or classes of user. As it is a > monopoly, it must be required to base its charges on a valid > rationale. > > >
