Another TekSavvy price increase

pman113 wrote: ↑ so much for Trudeau's promise for lowering internet prices. they need to let one of the big U.S players into our Market. I remember when Verizon tried to buy wind and Bell, Rogers and Telus wouldn't stop crying about it

The US carriers are not salvation, many of them make Bell and Rogers look like saints.

That said strong regulations are needed here, not captured government agencies.
The free market leads to oligopolies and monopolies and thats exactly what is going on here.

Oh and Wind was a Harper invention, too little, too late.

Webhead wrote: ↑ Looks like all Plan prices at all ISP are increasing.
Nice way to gouge customers again. Especially when a lot of people are WFH.

As a result of the last CRTC decision, the small internet providers had increasingly smaller margins, if any now. So you're right, now that the big independent ISP Teksavvy has finally relented and passed on the price increase you'll see other smaller providers that haven't yet, finally raising their prices as they too would be holding off for as long as they could.

If you look/think back to last year - spring, summer , fall I believe it was, lots of RFD members were complaining of no deals whatsoever and rising internet prices during Covid. Fast forward to the last 1/2/3 months since the ridiculous CRTC wholesale pricing reversal flip-flop and we've seen various independent IPS's raising prices. Coinciding with that Bell, Roger's and the other huge companies now offering deals, including through their flanker brands like Fido and Virgin with pricing below the independent's wholesale costs.

The CRTC decision was not just, unjustified and incorrect, frankly I think there should be a criminal investigation to find out who's on the take.

As an aside, in the fall of 2019 when the CRTC announced significantly lower wholesale rates, (that the CRTC now reversed) Teksavvy lowered the prices of almost all of their plans in advance of being billed at those lower rates and held them at the lower rates for months. So, to their credit one of those price increases they implemented wasn't really a price increase.

pman113 wrote: ↑ so much for Trudeau's promise for lowering internet prices. they need to let one of the big U.S players into our Market.

US Internet service is at least as bad as ours overall, and is far, far worse in underserved regions. "Bring in the Americans" is only an answer if the question is "how can we make things worse?"

Communications infrastructure is a natural monopoly; the only way to prevent monopoly rent extraction in communications services is public ownership (i.e. through things like municipal broadband) or through utility-style regulation that caps the allowable rate of return for infrastructure owners.

americans pay more than we do for internet for slower speeds. The reverse is true for cellphone plans.

fergy wrote: ↑ The CRTC decision was not just, unjustified and incorrect, frankly I think there should be a criminal investigation to find out who's on the take.

Don't lose sight of the fact that the federal cabinet can overrule the CRTC. If the Trudeau government wanted lower Internet prices it could have required the CRTC to respect its original ruling. The CRTC is replete with issues (and is also replete with many other things resembling sewage) but the buck stops with the Prime Minister.

My personal suspicion is that the government expected the original wholesale price reduction to be struck down by the courts. This would result in unchanged prices but blame being shifted from the CRTC and the PM onto the judiciary. When the courts ruled the 'wrong' way (i.e. in the public interest), the government immediately backtracked to ensure the 'right' outcome (i.e. to protect industry economic rents). The fact that the CRTC ultimately made the 'right' (from the industry perspective) decision without being overruled says very clearly that high prices are precisely what the federal government wants.

fergy wrote: ↑
frankly I think there should be a criminal investigation to find out who's on the take.

His name is Ian Scott, chair of the CRTC.
https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/carriers/ ... -crtc-pub/

evilYoda wrote: ↑ americans pay more than we do for internet for slower speeds. The reverse is true for cellphone plans.

Yah I think the US has it worse in many parts. At least in Canada our Telco's (mostly) kept upgrading DSL, and are starting to upgrade to Fibre. In the US Telco's abandoned DSL (didn't keep upgrading it as tech improved and didn't decide to start rolling out fibre). Now large swaths of the US only have access to Cable broadband, no competition I think Fibre down there is a bit patchy and only in some cities.. so many places can only get cable

Teksavvy/other smaller ISP needs investors to deploy its own broadband across the country or at least in areas where there is major demand. Relying on a major ISP has already shown that the government isn't doing what is in the consumers best interest.

Either they get outside investments OR they should all pool together and create their own network they can share off of, something to get off the backbone of companies like Bell and Rogers.

Quentin5 wrote: ↑ Very true. And then voters choose the Cons who promise easy answers but are even more captured and peddling stronger lies than the Libs.
At times Harper did things against his own ideology to maintain power, but if the Libs do the same they are castigated for it and this gets votes for the Cons.

Hence a cycle of stupid or stupider and we things ultimately get worse and not better.

Are you suggesting that the problem is the voters and not the politicians?
Oh my!

SPARTACVS wrote: ↑ Are you suggesting that the problem is the voters and not the politicians?
Oh my!

Yup

And when things are good or bad voters often choose worse becasue they are offered lies and easy answers.
Then things get much worse then they swing center again.

Zero1 wrote: ↑ Teksavvy/other smaller ISP needs investors to deploy its own broadband across the country or at least in areas where there is major demand. Relying on a major ISP has already shown that the government isn't doing what is in the consumers best interest.

Either they get outside investments OR they should all pool together and create their own network they can share off of, something to get off the backbone of companies like Bell and Rogers.

That's kind of the problem isn't it? People don't like TPIA's being called resellers, but the last mile is probably the most expensive part of the infrastructure to setup. Telus is doing it here in BC with laying out fibre, but it's costing them a crap tonne to do it. Telus is an established company that has big enough revenues to foot the bill.

I don't think any incumbent would find the money to be able to roll out the last mile here. You'd spend all that money but you'd still be competing for the same pie, so all that infrastructure, for a third of the pie kind of thing (at best, you know the incumbents would also try to crowd you out, but drastically lower prices, so it's a struggle to stay a float).

I always felt like our TPIA model in Canada was a bit of a misnomer. The whole system depends on forcing the competition to share infrastructure the incumbents spend billions of dollars to create/maintain. They're not going to want to share, and it's not real competition.

I suppose the one solution I've liked, was have the government build a wired network. Then they lease it out to everyone. That's probably the only way for some genuine competition.

jdmfishingonly wrote: ↑ Should this be news? Come on!

This is reality in this country. All ISPs are NOT controlled by our government.

Do you seriously not know the difference between a free and regulated market?
ISPs are heavily regulated, and as such, are controlled by our government, via the CRTC.

So disappointing how in the modern age, ridiculous opinion has equal weight with intelligence.
If you don't actually understand how this works, educate yourself.

zod wrote: ↑
I always felt like our TPIA model in Canada was a bit of a misnomer. The whole system depends on forcing the competition to share infrastructure the incumbents spend billions of dollars to create/maintain. They're not going to want to share, and it's not real competition.

You are forgetting that pre1980’s, telecom rates were regulated by the government.
That’s why long distance was so expensive.
The government justified this “subsidy” to the telecoms as a way of making sure the infrastructure got built.
So what really happened is Canadians paid for the network that’s currently built out in the country.
The government is really just trying to make sure it’s properly shared.

pman113 wrote: ↑ so much for Trudeau's promise for lowering internet prices. they need to let one of the big U.S players into our Market. I remember when Verizon tried to buy wind and Bell, Rogers and Telus wouldn't stop crying about it

Non partisan perspective here.

I was never a big fan of Harper, and totally felt they were full of it when they talked the talk about improving things for consumers. When Trudeau was elected, I very much was expecting (more like hoping) that some real things would be done.

Makes me want to cry, but the way Harper managed CRTC was much more consumer friendly than what we saw during Trudeau years. Does anyone even remember that time when we all thought a 4th national player would help keep things honest?

Telecom lobby basically has total control over Trudeau. This new CRTC head - he didn't just appear out of magic, and there is no way in hell his reversal plans were unforseen by gov't.

All the baloney scandals meant nothing to me - but reneging on this (and electoral reform), this is not acceptable. This is not leadership - it is capitulation.

shikotee wrote: ↑ Do you seriously not know the difference between a free and regulated market?
ISPs are heavily regulated, and as such, are controlled by our government, via the CRTC.

So disappointing how in the modern age, ridiculous opinion has equal weight with intelligence.
If you don't actually understand how this works, educate yourself.

Ever worked for one of them? No. I worked at Rogers in Retention. I definitely know what I'm talking about.

jdmfishingonly wrote: ↑ Ever worked for one of them? No. I worked at Rogers in Retention. I definitely know what I'm talking about.

My money is on the Retention job not having much need for comprehension of our complex regulatory framework.

But for fun - I'll nibble. Sell me on how your Rogers retension gig has given you access to knowledge and breadth that points towards telecom policy not being guided and restricted by Telecommunications Act (1993) and Broadcasting Act (1991).

Let me know when I should pop some popcorn, so I can better enjoy your fantasy perspective....

joo wrote: ↑ His name is Ian Scott, chair of the CRTC.
https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/carriers/ ... -crtc-pub/

And he was part of Telus in his past. Follow the money.

joo wrote: ↑ You are forgetting that pre1980’s, telecom rates were regulated by the government.
That’s why long distance was so expensive.
The government justified this “subsidy” to the telecoms as a way of making sure the infrastructure got built.
So what really happened is Canadians paid for the network that’s currently built out in the country.
The government is really just trying to make sure it’s properly shared.

I'm not sure how long that argument would stand. Cable companies didn't offer phone services back then , and Telco's that aren't giving up, are building out new fibre networks (to replace the old ones).

zod wrote: ↑ I'm not sure how long that argument would stand. Cable companies didn't offer phone services back then , and Telco's that aren't giving up, are building out new fibre networks (to replace the old ones).

Their position of market dominance is entirely due to previous government subsidies, as well as regulations designed to protect them from foreign competition.

shikotee wrote: ↑ Their position of market dominance is entirely due to previous government subsidies, as well as regulations designed to protect them from foreign competition.

What subsidies did the Cableco's get? I'd like to know more about that.