CRTC chair says it's hard to sustain low wireless, internet prices in long term

StatsGuy wrote: ↑ he's absolutely correct as well. That's why leaches like teksavvy have done nothing other than get rich making money on the spread between mandated low rates and sky high rates they charge customers with zero investments in building their own network.

fttn and fiber connections are stupid expensive to install and put in especially without guaranteed usage from consumer, if companies like the big telcos have to spend Billions on infrastructure and then forced to resell at mandated prices to TPIA who then undercut them, why would they upgrade especially in a quick manner before slowing down if not stop at all and see if it makes economic sense.

StatsGuy wrote: ↑ he's absolutely correct as well. That's why leaches like teksavvy have done nothing other than get rich making money on the spread between mandated low rates and sky high rates they charge customers with zero investments in building their own network.

fttn and fiber connections are stupid expensive to install and put in especially without guaranteed usage from consumer, if companies like the big telcos have to spend Billions on infrastructure and then forced to resell at mandated prices to TPIA who then undercut them, why would they upgrade especially in a quick manner before slowing down if not stop at all and see if it makes economic sense.

sixteen12 wrote: ↑ This guy works for the big 3 for sure.

MyNameWasTaken wrote: ↑ Isn't this part of the cost of doing business? I remember Telus and Bell decided to go with CDMA and got burned. Rogers did GSM and got a good chunk of the Canadian population at that time.

ml88888888 wrote: ↑ It is due to our population and big area, vs, US. & Europe.

StatsGuy wrote: ↑ Nope...just using my mind and some logic?

Does it make sense if say govt wants more affordable housing (true) that they demand/mandate say a developer like Minto sell their lots/homes at a lower price (eg 60% of market price) to another for profit builder (eg teksavvy) who then sells it to the public at a
slightly lower price and profit with none of the risk and capital expenditures ?

How is it any different?

If people/govt want lower internet/Telco prices, they should ask for a crown agency to do it much like in some other provinces..but don't be surprised it's not actually cheaper and/or slower with inconsistent/low investment in upgrades or upkeep (eg Toronto housing corp)

Dhanushan wrote: ↑ Calls for federal government to reverse decision on internet wholesale rates, fire CRTC head
Small telecoms and opposition parties pressured the Liberal government to overturn what one group called the CRTC’s 'most anti-consumer decision on record'

https://montrealgazette.com/news/politi ... -crtc-head

engineered wrote: ↑ Actually, I'm pretty sure they say out population is more concentrated than the USA, as most of us are very near the USA border, whereas people are more spread out over the USA.
It's pretty well known that we have limited competition, and they collude together and have their former VP's appointed to our regulator.
I'm not sure if it's still the case but 5+ years ago it was cheaper for someone from the USA to use their phone here than us.

sixteen12 wrote: ↑ I’m not going to argue your opinion. However, remember that Bell, Telus, and Rogers built large amounts of their networks off of federal and provincial support. Requiring them to open their lines at wholesale prices to third parties doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. Maybe their CEOs don’t get their full 7 figure bonus as a result, but I’m sure they’d survive just fine.

GloryFades wrote: ↑ Don't some more rural parts of America have atrocious internet options though? I've heard some states have issues where certain significant areas don't have access to high speed broadband. I guess that's also true of our really rural areas, however from what I've heard the number of ppl affected is significantly greater due to their larger population... Yeah, I've also heard of ppl getting good rates using USA carriers here. I imagine it helps that they have massive consumer bases by comparison geographical size aside...

gr8dlr wrote: ↑ At the EOD, these are private businesses operating in a regulated industry. If someone wants to make an investment, they should be allowed to price/sell that business for whatever they want and no one should be able to "strong arm" them to sell it to someone else who isn't investing in the infrastructure.

CRTC has over and over again tried to get more players to come into this industry to make it more competitive....and you know why no one is stepping in? It's because of this kind of stuff where the CRTC can just undermine the investment you made 5/10/20 years ago [under one set of rules] by forcing you to sell it at some rate THEY decide today. These large infrastructure investments take a long long time [50 yrs is not uncommon by any stretch] to earn back.

All of the ppl who live in big urban centres would love lower rates but if you live in a small town up north, they just want service and players like the big 3 are the ones building the infrastructure and it's being financed in many respects by the bigger uban customers.

If CRTC [Federal Govt] wants to regulate prices, maybe they should invest the money and rent out the lines to everyone instead.

Buy the stock of the three telcos and then you won't need to complain about this stuff.

StatsGuy wrote: ↑ Nope...just using my mind and some logic?

Does it make sense if say govt wants more affordable housing (true) that they demand/mandate say a developer like Minto sell their lots/homes at a lower price (eg 60% of market price) to another for profit builder (eg teksavvy) who then sells it to the public at a
slightly lower price and profit with none of the risk and capital expenditures ?

How is it any different?

If people/govt want lower internet/Telco prices, they should ask for a crown agency to do it much like in some other provinces..but don't be surprised it's not actually cheaper and/or slower with inconsistent/low investment in upgrades or upkeep (eg Toronto housing corp)