So far as I am aware, for something to be "anti-competitive" it must restrict the (otherwise non-criminal) actions of extant or would-be competitors in a market. From what I've been able to glean about the UBB brouhaha, the change is a removal of such a restriction, thus would be quite the opposite of "anti-competitive."
Perhaps the deeper issue is that relaxation of this anti-competitive restriction would reveal the negative effects of actual anti-competitive CRTC regulations. To paraphrase Henry David Thoreau, instead of hacking at the branches of "anti-competition," perhaps you should strike at the root.
Bell's IPTV service would not be subject to the UBB pricing while Netflix would be.
Then it would be the regulations granting monopoly that are anti-competitive. Again, removing restrictions on extant and would-be competitors cannot be anti-competitive; words mean things.
That's... not true at all. It's not limited (in practice) in the sense that there is only so much we will ever have, but it is definitely limited in the sense that there are costs associated with getting more.
It is, however, generally true that the incremental cost of a gigabyte consumed by a residential user is dwarfed by the up-front cost of getting reasonable bandwidth to their door.
-UBB is anti-competitive
-Bandwidth restrictions harm the adoption of modern technology in Canada
-Bandwidth is not a limited resource, therefore charging by total use is incorrect
-Bell doesn't charge for bandwidth use on its own IPTV solution.
-Most ISPs aren't "resellers" but simply using the last mile connections to consumers.
-The growing rate of internet use means that 25gb in a month will not be considered "a heavy user" for long.
And feel free to embellish as you see fit. But please avoid hyperbolic arguments like "This is a matter of free speech" or "Internet is a human right." We need serious well reasoned arguments, not knee jerk marching slogans.