173

Industry Minister’s open letter says more wireless competition is better for Canada

moore

‘Fair for Canada’ is the name of a campaign that Bell, TELUS and Rogers started to inform the government – and ‘misinformed Canadians’ – of various policy loopholes that potentially favour ‘giant American corporations’ who might interested in entering the Canadian wireless space.

Much of this has to do with the recent rumours of Verizon buying WIND Mobile, thus possibly bidding in the upcoming spectrum auction. Their dedicated site states that the Big 3 are not opposed to competition, but that they want a ‘level playing field’ and “giving special access to foreign wireless companies will hurt Canadians,” plus is “unfair and will have massive consequences for Canadians.”

Late Friday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared he wants more competition in Canada and will not close the so-called ‘loopholes,’ specifically saying that “Our government has pursued this very consistently… a policy of fostering greater competition in this industry for the benefit of Canadian consumers over the past few years… While I appreciate some companies have interests that are very important, our government’s first priority is the wider Canadian public and Canadian consumers and we are convinced this is where they want to see us go.”

Things are now getting interesting.

In a letter, published by the Financial Post, to PM Harper by Anthony S. Fell, a Director of BCE, reveals this topic is getting personal. Fell noted that he finds it disrespectful that James Moore, the newly appointed Industry Minister, only gave George Cope, Darren Entwistle and Nadir Mohamed – who are ‘three of the most capable Chief Executive Officers in Canada’ – half hour to present their case. They each should have had more time with him to express the full scope of the impact of ‘Fair for Canada.’

Fell stated that “the biased spectrum auction and other major subsidies being proposed for Verizon have all the hallmarks of a political populist initiative to capitalize on a mis-informed public view that the Canadian cellular market is uncompetitive and Canadian cellphone charges are much higher in Canada than in the U.S… if the Canadian market is so uncompetitive and if cellphone charges so high and Canadian telecos so profitable, why can’t Verizon enter the market with no subsidy just like everyone else?”

The Prime Minister didn’t respond, but Moore did. He openly blasted Fell’s letter. The Minister happily responded to his questions and concerns, clearly stating the “letter is filled with assumptions.” Moore outwardly declared, even though he was not Minister of Industry at the time, that since 2008 the Canadian government has always served in the best interest of Canadians, not shareholders of corporations: “I have tremendous respect for the leaders of Canada’s telecommunications firms and their drive to do what is best for their shareholders. However, our responsibility is toward a broader public interest, and we are serving Canadians with our policy approach.”

Finally, to cap off the topic that Canadians are misinformed: “I think Canadians know very well what is at stake and they know dishonest attempts to skew debates via misleading campaigns when they see them. Equally, Canadian consumers know instinctively that more competition will serve their families well through better service and lower prices.”

Check out the entire letter called “A Telecom Policy for All Canadians” here.

  • BCKid

    With all these craps, we might be able to make a few movies out of these.

    • Jason

      My guess is Verizon will buy Wind and Mobilicity to remove the downward pressure on plan pricing. They will then buy prime spectrum and piggy back off the big three to cover their flaws. Then we can collectively grab our ankles and offer ourselves to the big four. Remember this during the next election and let’s get rid these crooked conservatives

    • Mike Markooni

      and put whom ( which ploitical party) in power, NDP? we know what the did in Toronto back in 80′s, liberals- for a decade of pain or ….

      so tell me whom would you elect?

    • Dave

      Seems like you working for one of the big three.
      There is no way in the world that Verizon would not bring prices down, better service etc.
      This is a FACT, this is why the big three are peeing in their pants now.

    • Jason

      It’s funny. Everyone who does not think Verizon will benefit the
      Canadians works for the Big 3. I just think the conservatives are
      corrupt.

      Look at Duffy and Wallin and how they tried to cover up. look at how they bend over to the oil companies and let them screw Canadians but say they are doing this to better Canada. I can’t wait to see them blame everyone but themselves when their scheme fails. Get these crooks out of office!

    • Dave

      You mix politics with facts, who cares?

    • Al Chui

      Funny that your comments about politics are as skewed as the Robellus’ campaign against Verizon. How you conveniently don’t mention the two Liberal senators that are also involved in the expense scandal. As for not admitting to their own sins, you do realize that the federal & Ontario Liberals share the patent for blaming the previous gov’t. A decade later and McGuinty / Winn are still blaming Mike Harris.

      While I have concerns about Verizon and think the gov’t needs to ensure they are committed to actually building out infrastructure beyond just the major cities and major hwy corridors, not just riding on the infrastructure that we Canadians have funded through our cell bills or the subsidies / tax breaks that the big 3 got over the years.

      More competition can only be GOOD for Canadians.

    • Jason

      Chui,
      Who is the second liberal? I count 3 conservatives and 1 Liberal. Consservatives = corrupt

    • Al Chui

      My mistake on the senators. Doesn’t change the rest of the observation. Liberals are as corrupt if not more corrupt than the conservatives you hate.

  • HelloCDN

    Yeah, lower prices. My home country has lower prices – my guess is because 3G network (not even speaking of any LTE) isn’t available at all. You can even get unlimited Internet access for only 10$/m – at 56 kbps, that is.
    But what do I know – Canadian consumers know better.

    • Kamil Czerniak

      My country has lower prices than Canada, w/ ~10$ for unlimited calling, 5$ for unlimited texting and 1 GB for 3$. Although it’s much smaller than Canada, it has almost the same population. LTE has launched in one network, with others getting ready and 3G covers ~95% of population. All thanks to fourth carrier. I don’t know how things will get with Verizon, but usually one more carrier means more competition.

    • Who Needs Facts

      This is interesting but it can be at least partially explained by the statistic that Canada’s GDP (PPP) per capita, which is a basic measurement of quality of living is $42,734 a year while Poland’s is less than half at $20,592 a year.

      I

    • Kamil Czerniak

      Mind you, Polish złoty (PLN) is 3 times weaker than Canadian dollar. Plus, few years ago we had to pay 0,6-0,8 zł/min. while minimum wage was ~1300 zł (~400$). Right now minimum wage is 1600 zł and average rate is 0,19 zł/min.

    • Who Needs Facts

      Yes – the different rates of wages, exchange and cost of living are why it is hard to just say that one country is cheaper or more expensive than another just by comparing straight plan numbers.

  • Sweet

    “I think Canadians [...] know dishonest attempts to skew debates via misleading campaigns when they see them.”

    Yep.

    • Graham Wilson

      Yeah I nearly choked on my coffee when I read that. Talk about doublespeak.

  • wildting2

    Conservatives to ROBELLUS: “YOU SHALL NOT PASS!!!”

  • Liberal Phone Person

    impossible to legislate against price-fixing. how would one break up an oligopoly?

    • hardy83

      Nothing is impossible. How? No idea, and I’m not going to bother because while any ONE of those things I listed would be nice, I know this government would even come close to consider any of them.

      Nor any Liberal or NDP government, because I’ve lost faith in our government system actually being “for the people” years ago.

    • Liberal Phone Person

      yawn. they wouldn’t do it because it wouldn’t work. Real competition works.

  • ABCONMan

    “Moore outwardly declared, even though he was not Minister of Industry at the time, that since 2008 the Canadian government has always served in the best interest of Canadians, not shareholders of corporations”

    That’s a load of BS.

    • Josh Brown

      You must work for one of the Big 3, right?

    • SmartGuy

      You must work for the government then?

    • Josh Brown

      This Guy is always saying that the Big 3 are fair and their plans are cheap I am just asking if he works for one of them. There are a few brave people that say that they work for one of them but I think there is some on here that are being paid to mislead people.

    • SmartGuy

      Yeah but what ABCONMan was saying wasn’t even defending the Big 3. Just pointing out the government isn’t always true to its word and not transparent at all. So many scandals and questionable spending by the government- how can they say they’ve “always served in the best interest of Canadians, not shareholders of corporations”

  • ABCONMan

    They’re too stupid to understand that.

  • Liberal Phone Person

    one of the big four would eventually occupy the niche in the market currently offered by t-mobile in the states. that’s the aim

  • ABCONMan

    Dream on. Kiss your WIND prices goodbye.

    • Kamil Czerniak

      Ehm, you don’t know how competition works. You’re a new entrant? You got no customers. What do you do? Keep prices at Robelus levels? This is a suicide. You lower the prices, you give extras, you offer good quality service. If you do that incumbents would lose customers to you. They would have to lower their prices even more to keep you. Then, to get even more customers, you lower the prices again. And so on.

    • J-Ro

      What you described is why Wind is in debt. Sounds great what your saying for a consumer but how is a business to grow with little to no profit?

    • Kamil Czerniak

      Everyone who is opening their own business must be aware that they won’t get the profit outright. They need to invest to get higher profits in future.

    • J-Ro

      I know for a fact that Verizon will do well here, they are a successful North American company already. When you said “You lower the prices, you give extras, you offer good quality service. If you do that incumbents would lose customers to you. They would have to lower their prices even more to keep you. Then, to get even more customers, you lower the prices again. And so on.” I was saying that is an example of what hurt and continues to hurt Wind.

      Verizon will do well here and prices will drop, but I doubt they will give unlimted data. It will be like the plans we have now, just $10 to $20 cheaper, which is still great to me.

    • Stephen_81

      How successful is your business using this model of constantly lowering prices with ever increasing operating costs?

      It is a glorious model I’d love to know how it actually works in the practical world

    • ScooterinAB

      So what happened to Wind? Sure, they have lower prices and attracted a number of customers. But they don’t have good service, good customer service, nor give customers extras. Wind is failing because they do not have a high enough revenue compared to their operating costs. They have largely saturated the urban market, gaining about as many customers as they can. The company is unable to expand their network to gain more rural customers because they have no money. Reducing their prices to the breaking point just hurt the company. Moblicity is in the same boat.

      What you are describing was exactly what Wind tried to do, and it blew up in their face. No new entrant or juggernaut company new to the Canadian market is going to repeat that flop. IF (and big if at this point) Verizon enters the market, it will set its pricing equal to the Big 3, because that’s how you make a profit. It’s as simple as that.

      Verizon entering the market is not a magic wand that will fix everything. It will probably have no appreciable effect. The thing to keep in mind is that, currently, a foreign power can only hold a 10% market share. Verizon isn’t going to steal every customer and force the Big 3 into bankrupcy. In reality, they’ll get the customers who have already been disconnected by every other carrier (the customer base that Wind targets) as well as a few disgruntled people that switch companies every 2-3 years, hoping the grass is greener on the other side. Unfortunately, we all know that the grass is not greener. The customer base of the Big 3 will, “at best,” freeze where it is while a relative handful of people try Verizon out, then probably switch back within a few years when the company plateaus.

    • Josh Brown

      How much did you get paid to write this?

  • ABCONMan

    Feel free to set up your own national LTE network and tell us all what you would charge.

    I thought so.

    • mistermystery

      How many shares you have in Robellus?

      I thought so

    • Nobel

      LOL. This guy (ABCONMan) either works for ROBELUS or has a loads of shares on them.

    • Nobel

      I see. Maybe that can JUSTIFY ROBELUS outrageous prices !!!

  • ABCONMan

    The best outcome would be if WIND and Mobilicity were snatched up by Verizon. Then, all those cheapskates can be raped on those American rate plans they’ve been dreaming about.

    • Jonathan McKenzie

      because you know for sure thats whats gonna happen :/ @ABCONMan

    • wildspin

      No one can force people switching to Verizon, correct? if the price comparison does come out in favour of Robellus, you guys should be happy, right?

      Why not? people will “choose” to stay with Robellus and you guys can pop out the champagne and celebrate. :-)

    • WAKE-UP

      Just another ROBELUS CSR agent filling in his time, shouldn’t you be in bed as ROBELUS CSR only work till 4.

  • gmaninvan

    Not really. What everyone seems to forget and what the big threes propaganda commercials neglect to mention is that these “benefits” over the existing oligopoly only apply to companies with less than ten percent market share. If they expand beyond that, their advantages vanish.

  • gmaninvan

    Not with Wind they didn’t

  • gmaninvan

    You need to do your research. This isn’t a clear cut advantage. If they let the big three participate, they will buy all the spectrum and sit on it. Just like they have done with a huge chunk of AWS spectrum which was bought for the sole purpose of stifling competition.

    Also, the laws for tower sharing only apply to companies with less than ten percent of the Canadian market. If Verizon starts growing, they will have to spend a ridiculous amount of money to build out their own nationwide network.

  • Jonathan McKenzie

    Ive yet to hear a well reasoned arguement on how Verizon coming to Canada would make things worse than it already is…

    • Bbrysucks

      That’s because there hasent been one. The big three can go eff themselves, and do it hard.

    • halcar99

      Just curious but if Verizon did come to Canada, would they allow us to roam on their US network for the same price? Theres a big advantage that I would jump on to…

  • gmaninvan

    “if the Canadian market is so uncompetitive and if cellphone charges so high and Canadian telecos so profitable, why can’t Verizon enter the market with no subsidy just like everyone else?””

    Ummm let me tell you Mr. Dumbass Fell. You seem to be omitting a nice piece of information. All those towers across Canada that you put your fancy LTE hardware on were built by and paid for by the Canadian taxpayer twenty years ago when the first analog network was a national program. You know who didn’t pay to make that happen, your three companies.

    The reason this is happening is because, since the last spectrum auction, you have done everything in your power to crush the new competitors into the ground. Both Wind and Mobilicity are up for sale with the latter bleeding cash. It is expensive to build a network and when someone is coming into a market with a geographical area the size of Canada, I hate to break it to you but you have a pretty substantial advantage, even with the spectrum deficit.

    On another note, Bell, Telus, and Rogers, all just reported their last quarters and guess what, ARPU is up across the board. Gee guys, really feel sorry for you when your average revenue per user is $60-$65. Are you Fu@king kidding me? That is actually the average cost of a cell phone bill in Canada with these crooks. They tell you they are protecting Canadian jobs, sovereignty, etc. but the reality is, the only thing they give a crap about is increasing that ARPU for the shareholders and charging Canadians even more for wireless.

    I switched from Telus to Wind two years ago and have saved well over $1000 since. As far as I am concerned, they can kiss my a$$.

    • wildspin

      Many younger Robellus employees probably don’t know much about what happened 20+ years ago … when speaking of Canadian jobs, it sounds like a broken record to say that Robellus haven’t ever let anyone go, shut down some offices until – Verizon arrives? Now it was all American’s fault!

      Give me a break … LOL

    • JTon

      A couple things… APRU isn’t per individual. It’s per account. Many accounts have multiple lines. Which inflates APRU. The physical towers aren’t the expensive part. It’s the technology on them and the technology in the supporting network.

    • gmaninvan

      Ok. This may be true of corporate accounts, but the majority of accounts in this country out of the almost 8 million subscribers each one of these carriers has is a single line. This also falls in line with the average smartphone pricing by the big three (if not even being a bit lower). I know tons of people who pay more than that with Robellus.

      I used to design cell phone towers for a living, trust me, they are the more expensive part. First there is the survey where you have to gain approval from all who live in the area and local businesses, then the land acquisition (if there is land available, sometimes forced to make deals with business owners to put them on the roof of a building), the permits, then you have to buy the tower from the manufacturer (in pieces),hire a logistics company to transport all your material, hire a civil contractor to pour the foundation, hire a structural contractor to assemble the tower. Only then can you start installing the equipment on it.

    • JTon

      All teens with cellphones most likely have their account billed to one of their parents. Is that not enough for you?

      Network technology vendors operate in a similar oligopolic environment. They charge enormous sums for their boxes. Analogue, 2G, 3G, HSPA, LTE all require new equipment. This is just at the access point too. You still need infrastructure and equipment to transport the signals. I’ll admit I don’t know the numbers but until I see them, I doubt the physical tower is the most expensive part.

    • gmaninvan

      So that is one demographic. The largest demographic for cellular usage is between 20 and 35. The majority of them are using individual smartphones. I don’t even need to go that far. Look at the people you know with an average smartphone plan from any of the big three. I can almost guarantee they are paying more than that. Slap tax on that and you have around $80 a month which is a typical plan that people have. This number is bang on.

      LTE has actually been lauded as comparatively cheaper than its predecessor. I

    • JTon

      I think you’re missing my point. It doesn’t matter if the majority is single lines. If there are sub-majority groups large enough numbers in users or price paid, it’s easily enough to distort APRU. Math.

      And again, it doesn’t matter if LTE is comparatively cheaper… My point is there are generations (plural) of expensive of upgrades to the equipment on the towers themselves. LTE is just the latest.

    • gmaninvan

      Have you looked at the profits these three companies have been reporting for the last several years? Even with their rollouts?

      They are all public companies, the information is there. They are making massive profits. You want to talk math, then explain to me how that ARPU number is so accurate to the average that people pay on their bills. I personally am skeptical that this is even based on account. I would say it is more likely by line.

    • gmaninvan

      To end this.

      “Method of Calculation: To calculate the ARPU, a standard time period must be defined. Most telecommunications carriers operate by the month. The total revenue generated by all units (paying subscribers or communications devices) during that period is determined. Then that figure is divided by the number of units. Because the number of units can vary from day to day, the average number of units must be calculated or estimated for a given month to obtain the most accurate possible ARPU figure for that month. [1]”

      If they went by accounts, the number would be horribly skewed as a corporate account could have upwards of 1000 devices on it. It is simple, they take their total revenue and divide it by the number of open lines averaged out over the quarter.

      Math

    • JTon

      I don’t follow. It says “paying subscribers or communication devices”. The numbers would work out different depending on which method chosen above. If it was paying subscribers, a family is a single subscriber.

      Regardless, it’s a generic statement with different outcomes, not applying to any of the Big-3 specifically…

  • Thomas C. Riddell

    Bell rogers tellus Cry me a river You been ripping us for years
    It time bring some Americans to bring down Prices

  • Balls O’Steele

    Why would Verizon want to buy Wind/Mobilicity? Verizon phones use CDMA while wind/mobilicity is AWS. The US phones won’t work in Canada.

    • skullan

      They are implementing LTE on 1700/2100

    • Balls O’Steele

      Then I hope they buy both wind and mobilicity because those 2 companies aren’t expanding their network fast enough.

    • Chrome262

      And they are in a position to rent other spectrum as well, and CRTC is requiring the others to offer it as well, they already do, but CRTC will make it a point that a new entrant will be able to compete.

    • gmaninvan

      How is this a bad thing?

  • WAKE-UP

    Didn’t take long for the ROBELUS EMPLOYEES to start spewing there BS posts here. I be more concerned about your end of the years bonuses being spent on BS propaganda

  • bill

    Why can’t the big 3 compete and match Wind’s pricing?

    The big 3 would have to drop their level of service somewhat, such as, matching Winds home zones and having 20 cents per minute roaming when out of the Wind zone and keeping 3G instead of having LTE.

    I’d be happy with that…

    • Chrome262

      Yeah considering I Live down town. And most of what he said is bull, they have the infrastructure already, there are not costs, their profit margin is 10 times that of Wind, they could afford to give similar deals, they are just not worried about them yet, now they will be.

  • Blocknards

    Harper & Co. has all of Canada for sale anyway. Just like every other industry the Americans have bought into in this country, we will eventually lose ownership. Canadians will pay a high price in the end just to *possibly* save a couple bucks on their cell phone bills.

    • WAKE-UP

      I didn’t realize we live in a communist country, mabe you should move to one if you don’t like the freedom of choice and capitalism

    • Blocknards

      If we lived in a communist country we would have 1 choice and it would state owned. I support freedom of choice and capitalism (its good parts) but not at the cost of our country.

    • wildspin

      Hold on … the business of Robellus is built upon the cost of the country and its people!

    • skullan

      Harper, while I dislike most of what he does, has blocked more foreign purchases of Canadian companies than any Government in the last 20 years.

  • WAKE-UP

    well said WELCOME VERIZON

  • WAKE-UP

    Holly s**t all The ROBELUS CSR must be on the forum tonight

  • BCKid

    Honestly, do the government really care? They only care who will back them up when elections come.

    We want lower price as customers. Politicians want people to vote for them. Companies want to make profit. In the end, no hard feeling, it’s all money talk.

  • expunisher

    I love how all misinformed Canadians want to support a foreign company, out of your $70-85 a month, many of that goes to support Canadian Jobs, Pensions, community support. Verizon has done nothing but remove Canadian profits to the US. There are 4 blocks of spectrum, 2 go to verizon (on the cheap bc of no competition-which ultimately comes out of Canadian companies) and 2 go to all other canadian carriers (Rogers/Bell/Telus+ regional players). We have the 2nd fast average download speeds next to denmark? You guys all complain they rip you off, they don’t there are far greater things in your life that have WAY more markup then a cell phone, and considering telecom has major upgrade/maintenance costs compared you are getting a great deal)

    • wildspin

      Why should Americans buy Blackberry when they already have iPhone, Motorola, Google, etc?

      Why should Americans bank with RBC, TD or BMO Harris when they already have JP Morgan Chase, Citi, and BoA?

      Why would GM even bother to build cars in Oshawa when they ought to support their own brothers and sisters who lost their homes in Detroit?

      Blah blah blah …

    • skullan

      Well, your choice is simple then, stay with the incumbents.

    • Josh Brown

      How many jobs has Verizon “removed from Canada?

      Look how much Denmark pays for plans.

      Canada Average = $67.50
      Denmark = $39.00

      That was a bad comparison.

      Also How much spectrum should 3 companies have? They already have 90% of the spectrum that is available.

      The fact that the Big 3 doubled prices upon the introduction of two year terms, when $5 or $10 increase would have covered the cost, shows that they need competition. I agree with most that Verizon is not the best candidate, but we take what we can get.

    • Mike

      Every company pays taxes in Canada.. So would any foreign company entering the market. As a Canadian you can become the owner of that company if you want by buying its shares. Its called global economy.

    • gmaninvan

      ” (on the cheap bc of no competition-which ultimately comes out of Canadian companies)”

      You have to be kidding me. Do you actually think that Verizon is the only foreign company in the bidding for this? Gee, you are probably right, no other telecom company is interested in a market with 35 million potential wireless customers.

  • xtachx

    You are either a shill, and trying to misinform canadians or you are confused. ANYONE can buy wind except robelus. The reason robelus cant buy them is that it eliminates competition.

    ANYONE other than robelus can buy 2 blocks of spectrum, robelus can buy only one. The reason is that robelus has the HIGHEST amount of spectrum in the WORLD, and they dont need any more.

  • Daryll

    Great to see the Canadian government sticking up for the consumers when it comes to wireless phones.. lets tackle car insurance companies next since you are on a roll!!

  • EvanKrosney

    As much as I disagree with the Conservatives in essentially every other field, they’ve done a good job with this.

    BTW, I LOVE the new site design! Nice job guys!

  • DenzerD

    Funny how many of you think if lower cell phone prices, if you like at the Big 4 in the US, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-mobile they are far from superior to the Canadian companies. The US spectrum is so polluted that 4g and LTE are slower than our companies. Further more for those that welcome Verizon into Canada for more competition is fine and dandy but do you think for one moment it will create jobs in Canada, yes on the front line(retail stores) but the back end will all be ran out of the US. Yay Canada, more cell competition, less jobs, hooray! If you don’t like the prices of the Big 3 than switch to the mediocre value brands like Virgin, Koodo, Fido, Chatr, etc or don’t have a cell phone and quit complaining because you went over your minutes/data or didn’t pay your bill on time.

    • scoobadoo

      Last time I checked, Bell, Telus and Rogers all outsourced their call centres or other jobs. They are NOT in the business of creating jobs; they are same as any other big corps, MAKING PROFIT. It’s funny that the big 3 are crying for fairness. Life isn’t fair, get over it.

    • Alibode

      scoobadoo….that’s where you are misinformed. I work for one of those companies and believe me, my building is full of call center employees and guess what….it’s in Canada. DenzerD totall agree with you. Why would Verizon have more than a few retail jobs here when our minimum wage is 10.35 and it’s only 7.25 in the states. Anyway, hope all of the haters of Bell, Rogers and Telus on these blogs are on welfare cuz if they’re not, when the axe falls, their tax burden will definitely sky rocket…

    • gmaninvan

      “I work for one of those companies”

      Shocker lol

    • kkritsilas

      Telus call center, for initial contact, is in the Phillipines. Bell’s English call center is in India, I believe. Rogers’ is in Canada, but outsourced. Bell is about to open a call center in the French speaking part of Africa to outsource their current, Canadian based French speaking call center. All of the Big 3 have centers in Canada for more complex problems, but there are far fewer jobs in Canada than there could have been.

      As for “Why would Verizon have more than a few retail jobs here when our minimum wage is 10.35 and it’s only 7.25 in the states..” Are you for real? How exactly do you walk into a Verizon store in Calgary to check on a phone when it is located in the US? If Verizon does have a retail operation, it will be more than a few jobs in Canada.

      In most cases, the Big 3 carriers don’t even own their own stores; they are outsourced to companies lie Wireless Wave, or places like Best Buy. if Verizon does decide to open up their own, owned stores, they will more than a “few retail employees”, and may or may not get their phones from a US warehouse location. As for the Big 3 employing retail employees, have you noticed how may Rogers locations have closed over that last few years? How are the Canadian Big 3 carriers any better Verizon in this regard?

      Kostas

    • WAKE-UP

      Not only do we have ROBELUS EMPLOYEES here but now we have the PR Firm that ROBELUS hired posting there BS LIES

    • Josh Brown

      All those companies are owned by the big 3 and the prices are not that much cheaper. Which company do you work for?

    • gmaninvan

      “Funny how many of you think if lower cell phone prices, if you like at the Big 4 in the US, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-mobile they are far from superior to the Canadian companies”

      Really? You can get unlimited data with both T-Mobile and Sprint. They have had two year contracts as far back as I can remember with handset prices the same as our carriers charge on a three year. T-Mobiles HSPA+ network hits 45Mb/s and all the LTE networks rolling out in the US right now are between 45-70Mb/s.

      “but do you think for one moment it will create jobs in Canada, yes on the front line(retail stores) but the back end will all be ran out of the US”

      And the big three all have call centers in India. Wind, who is up for grabs, has two thirds of their call centers overseas already.

      The backend will still be managed from Canada because Wind and Mobilicity already have infrastructure in place for this purpose running AWS, which is different from Verizons CDMA/LTE network built on PCS bands.

      “If you don’t like the prices of the Big 3 than switch to the mediocre value brands like Virgin, Koodo, Fido, Chatr, etc or don’t have a cell phone and quit complaining because you went over your minutes/data or didn’t pay your bill on time.

      You need to get your facts straight. Those “discount” brands you speak of. Guess who owns them? Thats right, the big three. And they aren’t even really any cheaper than the incumbents.

      I really hate misinformed posts like this.

  • cole26

    The comparison for pricing should not be with the US, it should be with Europe. Nice to see government not folding to the corporations. They shouldn’t be complaining anyway, they were GIVEN spectrum by the government in the beginning.

  • Canadaboy

    Best line of the year: “I have tremendous respect for the leaders of Canada’s telecommunications firms and their drive to do what is best for their shareholders. However, our responsibility is toward a broader public interest, and we are serving Canadians with our policy approach.” Pretty much backhands the big three right there and says I’m tired of your monopoly on Canadian’s pocketbooks. One of the few times I’ve truly appreciated the Conservative government.

  • G0d5hand

    I as well think it would be bad to have a giant american company as the forth provider

  • MechMan25

    Now, if the government would allow some competition in the Canadian Satellite TV industry. This is another area where the Canadian public is getting raped.

    • Chrome262

      How about internet in major cities, Rogers and Bell sign deals with Shaw and Cogeco to keep them out of Toronto, and other cities. Pretty crappy if you ask me.

  • Alibode

    He looks like Otho from Beetlejuice…How could anyone take this guy seriously?

  • Jonathan Onuluk

    Well this is the first time I have ever said this but Harper is actually doing something for the people, and not listening to those 3 crooked companies.

  • phreaker

    Canada has coverage only around the cities or this is around 30% of the whole country. You do the math

  • MaddMaxx

    Isn’t Verizon the most expensive American carrier? What makes people think that Verizon will all of a sudden change how they do business when they enter Canada. Don’t get me wrong I want lower prices but at the same time I don’t think this will lower prices for too long. What I see happening is them obviously offering lower prices in the beginning while they build their user base and network. They cant charge the same prices with smaller coverage and/or possible lower quality network. This would last 2-3 yrs as I don’t see them taking too long to build out the network considering the cash they have to dedicate towards this and can probably sustain a losses in Canada for a few years. At this point prices will then increase to the Big 3 prices and a services war will start. Services and customer service will differentiate not price.

    • gmaninvan

      Canada is one of the largest geographical countries in the world. I can’t imagine them scaling up the business that rapidly. They will be a smaller regional carrier for the foreseeable future. Half of Winds towers now aren’t even owned by them, they are in a sharing agreement.

    • Chrome262

      Correct, there would be no benifit for them to have the same prices if not higher, that would be suicide. They most likely keep existing plans for Wind, and over time offer new ones. I don’t understand why people seem to think they will do business the same as they do the states, its a different market and they are in a different position. And, even in the states they are under pressure from their competitors.

    • gmaninvan

      Especially with the T-Mo US cellular merger. They are in a hotpot of competition down there. I think the Softbank acquisition of Sprint is going to bring the heat as well.

    • Chrome262

      Agreed, so maybe a Canadian market with a fresh revenue source could help them drop prices in the States. This could be a huge plan on their part. But even if they don’t come, the door is open. But I hope someone big comes, because small just might be eaten up by the big 3 again.

    • kkritsilas

      80% of Verizon’s initial CDMA roll out happened in less that 3 years. 100% coverage in 5 years. That network has more that 25K towers, closer to 50K. They would need about 6-7K towers to cover >90% of the Canadian population with good coverage (at least as good as Rogers, if not better). IT is not only doable, it has already been done. The Verizon regional manager in Kansas City that I used to work with had 8500 towers that he was responsible for. And relative to the East and West coasts, the Midwest is a low density area.

      All carriers least towers. All of them own towers. There is some split, and is carrier dependent. Wind has not been able to get onto the Big 3 towers very easily in the past, and you can bet Verizon will find it harder, so they will deploy their own towers. If you look at the spotty coverage that Wind has in many areas, it should be obvious that they have not succeeded in getting onto a lot of the Big 3 carrier towers. The much more restrictive tower sharing regulations in place for the upcoming 700 Mhz spectrum auction should also be another indicator that the tower sharing rules haven’t worked as intended.

      It isn’t good business to pay your competitors to carry your traffic, and it is not a good idea in general to allow your service levels to be at the mercy of your competitors. Verizon is very aware of both issues.

      Kostas

    • gmaninvan

      I guess this is a moot point now that Verizon has officially backed out but I will say one last thing.

      You also have to consider that Canada’s foreign ownership rules only allow for these benefits with respect to foreign companies with less than 10% marketshare. Verizon wouldn’t have wanted a rapid rollout since it would likely push them over that very quickly at which point they would have to sell a great deal of assets to a Canadian company.

    • kkritsilas

      A couple of small points:

      1. These are not benefits as in retirement benefits, unemployment benefits. They are simply the rules of the previous AWS/1700 MHz auction. Those rules were made after consultation with the carriers, along with other interested parties (i.e. they were not made solely on the wishes of the government). In the previous auction, all parties were well aware of the rules at the time that they submitted their bids, including both the incumbent carriers/Big 3, and any new entrants (Wind, Mobi, Verizon, Shaw, etc.) They all knew about the 5 year spectrum transfer ban up front to the Big 3 carriers.

      2. If Verizon had entered Canada, they would have done so with 0% market share, as they do not operate in Canada. Even entering Canada by buying either Wind or Mobilicity, they would have been below 10% marketshare, and even if they had bought both, they would probably (but I am not absolutely sure, I would have to check the market share numbers) have been below 10% market share. After they had bought Wind and Mobi, they would have been able to bid on 2 700MHz blocks. They also could have done it the reverse way; as a new entrant, buy the 2 blocks of 700MHz spectrum, then buy Wind or Mobi or both.

      There is nothing now that prevents a foreign owned carrier from having more than 10% market share. If and when Wind does go over 10% market share, they will NOT have to sell off anything to anybody, and Wind is foreign owned. The same would have applied to Verizon. As soon as they did reach 10% market share or greater, they would have had the same rules applied to them that the Big 3 have (no spectrum buy outs from new entrants, bidding on only one block of spectrum in a region, etc.) Nothing in the foreign ownership rules prevents them from growing to greater than 10% market share. Those rules were struck down in the Mobi-WInd lawsuit, and are still in place.

      Kostas

    • gmaninvan

      My point was that I doubt Verizon would make a massive national push as it wouldn’t take them long to crack that 10%, at which point they would have to change their ownership structure which would negate the buildout from a profit perspective since wireless operators over 10% must be majority Canadian owned.

      Yes, the operators are currently below 10% but they also don’t operate national networks. All Verizon would need to add are 2 million subs to crack the ten percent over what the other carriers that would likely be bought by Verizon have.

      In the case of Wind, I don’t think you fully understand the ownership structure. Vimpelcom only has 49% of the voting shares. This is because the regulations still state that wireless companies have to be Canadian controlled. They get around this to a large degree using Globalive, which is a Canadian company.

    • kkritsilas

      Verizon could very simply setup Verizon Canada, and Verizon Corporate could own 49% of that. Same as Vimpelcom. Nothing special here. They can further set up a Canadian VC/Investment company to own another 3% of Verizon Canada. We are playing with semantics here. In general, they can do what Vimpelcom has alerady done easily. Not much of an issue except in the academic sense.

      As for a nation wide roll out, no matter who the carrier is, they cannot increase thier ARPU unless they have national coverage, at least as good as Rogers. If Verizon had come to Canada via buyout of Wind and/or Mobilicity, they would not have been happy with Wind/Mobilicity ARPU levels. They would have wanted to increase those, probably substantially. There are only a few ways to do this, either by offering better plans, or by providing other competitive advantages. Those advantages would have to include better coverage than what is currently being offered by Wind/Mobilicity, just due to the very limited coverage being offered by Wind/Mobilicity currently. While the network expansion may not have happened in the same time frames that I spoke about regarding the US CDMA roll out in the US, I can easily see Verizon rolling out a Rogers level network in 5-7 years, most certainly all LTE. The 700 Mhz spectrum auction will facilitate this in suburban/rural areas, and the urban areas would continue with the AWS/1700 spectrum mostly, with some 700 MHz thrown in for downtown areas to ensure building penetration.

      Kostas

  • Josh Brown

    Does offset=gouge? Because by my calculations the pricing should have gone up $5 a month not $50 or $60. Lower end or older devices could very easily go for 1 year contracts.

    • ScooterinAB

      Pricing didn’t go up $50-60, so no, offset does not equal gouge. I’m not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but they are completely wrong.

      There is no justification for 1 year contracts, ever, for any reason. Entry level phones tend to be available on reduced price plans with little or no data required. That’s a pretty good deal, compared to where we were not 6 months ago.

      Yes, prices went up everywhere. I’m not defending that, since I also think that it isn’t entirely appropriate. But they really only went up by a few dollars (once you factor in the features and charges that are now included). The rest of the price increases, if you price it out, are actually offsetting the remaining device subsidy. I know it doesn’t look like it, but math is your friend here.

    • Josh Brown

      Wow you are crazy. How did prices not go up by $50 or $60 from last year. They had a $60 with unlimited talk, text and 6GB of data just one year ago. Now the same deal costs $110 or $120, with what new features?

      S4 costs $649.

      before on a 3 year contract = $199

      on a 2 year contract = $249

      subsidy on a 3 year = $450

      subsidy on a 2 year = $400

      $450 devided by 36 months = $12.5 per month

      $400 devided by 24 months = $16.6 per month

      So the cost for the plan should have gone up $4. You show me ANY equivalent plan from last year that cost $116 and not $120 and I will shut up about it.

      ” but math is your friend here.”

    • Josh Brown

      The Galaxy Ace costs $249

      $249 – $49(upfront costs) = $200

      $200 subsidy divided by 12 months = $16.6 per month subsidy

      that is the exact same number that the galaxy S4 should cost per month in subsidy. So why is no phone to be on a 1 year contract? You just assume that if someone wants a good plan they want a top of the line phone.

      Or What about used or refurbished phones that previously went for $0 on a 2 year term.

      “but math is your friend here.”

    • Josh Brown

      Come on lets see your Math.

    • ScooterinAB

      First off, rate plans did not go up by $60 in the last year. I believe that you are thinking about a Back to School promotion. In comparing apples to apples, in market, non-promotional plans only went up about $20-25. But that included the shift to unlimited calling and the inclusion of no cost long distance. Previously, customers were paying a fortune for those two features alone.

      Samsung S4. Using your price of $649.

      3 year contract price: $200.

      2 year contract price: Surprise. $200. The price seems to have gone down since the 2-year shift a few weeks ago. At it’s worse pricing, the phone was only about $30 more expensive, but that’s been corrected now.

      Most customers use 1 GB data plans, currently at $85. This is what is most commonly sold to customers, is in line with recent studies, and is in line (actually a bit higher) with Telus and Bell’s reported ARPU.

      3 year contract rate pricing over term (assuming the lowest price of $60): $2160

      2 year contract rate pricing over term (assuming $85 as is currently standard): $2040

      So yes. I was mistaken. A Samsung S4 actually costs customers less on a 2 year term than a 3 year term. The device subsidy is largely irrelevant, since the prices are the same price. In total, using these metrics, customers actually save $120.

      In the case where other phones went up in price, this is a little different, but not a big deal. With best-case savings of $120 over your term, any of the price increases we’ve seen (most of which were $30-50 for the device) are accommodated for by the increased savings over the term. I’m not going to calculate the pricing on a Samsung Ace, because I don’t know what that phone costs and because all of the Big 3 do not sells it (thus, it’s use is a flawed metric).

      To reiterate, I compared like plans to like plans, where available. Unfortunately, it is difficult to even compare the plan pricing I used, since one has unlimited Canad wide calling and has reduced pricing for adding second lines and the other had 200 local minutes and adding a second line cost you the full price. You, on the other hand, are comparing the best possible pricing of a one-time promotion to the worst possible in market pricing.

      In looking at my numbers, the increase cost of usage for 2 year terms actually comes out to a cheaper over all cost or customers. The price increase not only includes new calling features that would have cost a fortune only a year ago, but is also includes an offset for the lost subsidy that would have been offered. Would you have rather paid about $400 for an S4, or pay the same and actually save some money over your term.

      In conclusion, you’re calculations, flawed assumptions, and hateful rhetoric are incorrect and inappropriate. You must compare like with like, not what you want compared to the worst possible comparison available. 6GB data plans are not the norm, and are only either a promotion that is offered maybe once per year or a larger plan for those with multiple lines and a shared data pool. The majority of customers only use 1 GB per month, with some opting for 2 GB plans due to increased usage. If you cannot operate your single line phone on that, you are probably doing something inappropriate, unlawful, or are simply irresponsible regarding data versus WiFi use.

      Using your flawed metrics and methodology, I could extrapolate that the cost of external computer hard drives has increased 30 fold since I bought a hard drive in Japan in 2009 as the result of a promotion for about $2. See how ridiculous that claim is?

      APPEND: Before anyone goes off on me, let me reiterate 3 things before I make a second, more direct price comparison.

      1) The Big 3 all increased their pricing. I’m not in support of that. However,…

      2) Using the above metrics, the majority of the price increases off set the lack of a third year of device subsidy. This is money that each company would be directly losing because of the missing third year. The costs, with respect to device subsidy and contract length, are the same or lower now when compared to 3 year terms.

      3) I want to make it completely clear that you must compare like to like. My above comparison was comparing unlimited Canada-wide calling to the best possible price on an in-market plan with limited local calling (from 1 year ago). The math is sound, but a true comparison is impossible.

      So here is a second, more direct comparison of unlimited versus unlimited, comparing feature for features (save one that I’ll come back to).

      There is an unaccounted for $5 price increase from unlimited Canada-wide calling plans from 3 to 2 year contracts. This $5, over the length of a 2 year contract, comes out to $120.

      When factoring in any price increase on the purchase of devices, at the worst, this comes to $170, but it is more likely $150. This is the amount of 1 year’s device subsidy on a 3 year contract. Deal with it.

      This compares what plans were in June, just before the switch to 2 year contracts. I’m using this pricing because it is the best feature-for-feature comparison. The only feature that cannot be compared is the significantly reduced pricing on additional lines. You could create shared plans before by simply adding another line. Now, there is better pricing that shares the existing data pool, rather than adding a new line at full price.

      Using the simplest, more direct comparison, you can still see that that price on devices and rate plans is actually the same or better now, even though there has been a price increase.

      I remind anyone who was in support of the abolition of 3 year plans, and who is now complaining about pricing, of this simple phrase. This is what you asked for. No matter which way you cut it, your complaints were heard and action was taken. This meant that prices for phones was going to go up. And it has. You cannot complain about what you asked for.

    • Josh Brown

      First of all I just checked the Rogers website and it lists the S4 as $249 on a 2 year term.

      Your calculation does not take into account that you are getting 1 extra year of service with the 3 year contract.

      60 X 24 only gives you two years of service.

      85 X36 gives you 3 years of service.

      Your analogy says that the extra year of service is worth nothing. Do you see the flaw in your reasoning.

      “I’m not going to calculate the pricing on a Samsung Ace, because I don’t know what that phone costs and because all of the Big 3 do not sells it (thus, it’s use is a flawed metric).”

      -Give me a cheap phone that is on all the Carriers and we can do the math together.

      How is it flawed it is simple math, things cost what they cost.

      So give me a price of a plan from last year?

      It still does not change the fact that prices went up too much. Even if it was only the $20 to $25 a month extra like you say, that is still way to much. As I showed earlier the price should have only increased by $4.

      I am not being Hateful I said nothing against you. You are the one that said: “I know it doesn’t look like it, but math is your friend here.”

      You must be getting paid by one of the Big 3 because your calculations make no sense.

    • ScooterinAB

      Read what I just appended to my last post. It was taking too long to write, so I broke it up.

      Even if the price for a Samsung S4 is different from carrier to carrier (it won’t be for long), my second, more direct comparison accommodates for it.

      If and when I find an easily available entry-level phone, I am happy to compare the pricing. But I have also already nulled that point with my second comparison. Although costs increased, they largely increased due to a missing year of device subsidy. My second comparison covers all phones using my available data. I just used the S4 in the first comparison because that is what everyone is looking at.

      As I have said the entire time, I completely agree that pricing is becoming too high. However, I also see that the recent price increases were justified because of a directly loss in revenue.

      Regarding the “hateful” comment, I was speaking about the comments constantly made against the Big 3 everytime they do something. I’m sorry if you thought I took it personally.

      That being said, I find your comments about employment extremely offensive. I have worked for many telecomms. In fact, I have worked for nearly every Canadian wireless carrier. What does employment have to do with this? Just because I am educated about how this industry works does not mean that I’m not allowed to have an opinion.

      I was in support of the entire Wireless Code except for the abolition of 3 year contracts. The reason why is because removing 3 year terms would only mean price increases. Rather, I was in support of better device pricing and the option of 2 year terms across the board. I am also in support of more competition, because competition does drive down pricing and breed more innovation. What I’m not in support of is special snowflake treatment for Verizon or any other company that tried to enter the market. I agree with some of what the Big 3 are pushing, while disagreeing with others. So who are you to deny me having an opinion and trying to dispel the propagation of lies and false information, and attacking me because I am educated about this industry? So what if I work in telecommunications? That doesn’t mean that I’m being mind controlled and incapable of making my own decisions. That assumption on your part is beyond ignorant.

    • Josh Brown

      I disagree if your opinions are are motivated off of being paid to have those opinnions.

      So lets just do a little more math. The phone subsidy was $450 lets just say that there was no decrease in that.

      $450 / 36 months = $12.5 a month
      $450 / 24 months = $ 18.75 a month

      That is still only an increase of $6.25. how do you get $20 to $25 a month difference from $6.25.

      Please just answer that simple question.

    • Josh Brown

      You probably wont answer me till Monday because you dont “work” on the weekends. HAHA

    • Josh Brown

      “The device subsidy is largely irrelevant, since the prices are the same price. In total, using these metrics, customers actually save $120.” That is Crazy what do you mean the subsidy means nothing? That is the whole reason for the 2 year contracts is because people want a phone every 2 years because phones don’t last three years.

      So lets take it over 6 years

      $60 a month times 72 months = $4320 – 2 phone upgrades of $1400 =$2920
      $85 a month times 72 months = $6120 – 3 phone upgrades of $2100 =$4020

      So It will cost you a $1000 over 6 years thats and extra $13 a month for absolutely nothing. And that is if your plan only has a difference of $25. They are gouging us with these new plans.

      “The majority of customers only use 1 GB per month, with some opting for 2 GB plans due to increased usage. If you cannot operate your single line phone on that, you are probably doing something inappropriate, unlawful, or are simply irresponsible regarding data versus WiFi use.”

      What are you saying? I have 6 GB of data and I use around 5GB a month. I use Google music and Songza and watch TV and Movies over Netflix. Are you saying these activities are illegal? If I pay for 6 GB of data and use more than 1 or 2 GB that is illegal or irresponsible?

    • ScooterinAB

      I am tired of arguing with you about this, and getting 6 emails per day. In the future, please condense your responses into ONE reply.

      I have already proved that the price increases we saw in the last few months during the change to 2 year terms is actually the 3rd year’s device subsidy. What you are calculating is the device subsidy broken up over the term. What I am calculating is the actual cost of usage, and accounting for the price increases. Your calculations are irrelevant to the discussion, while mine continue to prove you wrong.

      Yes, prices have increased. But this is because the public cried bloody murder for 2 year terms without thinking about the consequences. I’m not happy with the price increases, but even the federal government acknowledges that we pay less now than we did 5 years ago. This is an imagined price increase.

      As for your angry comments about data use, I suggest that you actually read what I wrote. I said that most people use between 1 and 2 GB of data. I did not say that everyone uses less. Obviously, you are a part of the group that uses more. My comment that anyone uses excessive amounts of data are just that. If you can’t use WiFi, ration your usage responsible, or properly budget your usage and monthly bill, then you are being irresponsible with your usage. Just remember that you have CHOSEN to perform these behaviours. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use 5-6GB of data every month. If you use that much per month for work purposes (like the Shaw technicians that use iPads and cellular data to troubleshoot and test equipment), that’s a different story. But you CHOOSE to consume that much data for personal use. Your monthly bill is no one’s fault but your own. If you continue to use that much data, you will pay for whatever any carrier decides to charge and like it, until you change your usage behaviour. Don’t target your carrier because you lack self restraint.

      Regarding the pricing of the Ace II. I have already proven my point, so there is little reason to price that phone out as well and show that customers are paying as much now as they have been. I have already done this. Any perceived price increase, as I have already proven twice, accounts for the device subsidy that would have been lost. I can also say for a fact that carriers are creating better pricing for entry level and mid-range devices, now offering better plans and actually offering device subsidies for them. These devices are now appropriately represented in the market. But to console you, off the top of my head, you can buy the Ace II in-term for about $45 per month. The phone may also be available starting at around $30 per month, depending how each carrier classifies it and whether or not a customer needs data. The kind of person who’s buying an Ace II isn’t the kind of person who uses 6 GB of data per month, so the reduced plans are a great match. I’m not sure what the upfront pricing is at this very moment, but it’s certainly better than a few months ago, when you needed to buy a full voice and data plan across 3 years to get it.

      So, using the federal government’s own words, referencing recent studies on the cost of wireless services, and calculating any perceived price increase as the remaining device subsidy, I have proven again and again that customers are actually getting a better deal now than in the past. I am with you and everyone else on this site who thinks prices should continue to go down, but I also understand that we still need to pay for what we use. If we get sucked into the galmour and ease of wireless life, we will be paying more than we used to. Instead, if we approach ubiquitous wireless connectivity with the smallest amount of restraint and responsibility, we’re going to see that things are actually pretty good.

      In closing, I would like to reiterate a point that you and others continue to attack anyone who speak out against you regarding. Yes. I work in the wireless industry. I deal with pricing, market trends, and screaming psychos like you every day. But I also have a much better top down view of this industry than most by virtue of working in it. Just like a teacher is going to know more about education than most non-teachers, and how truckers know more about driving, safety, and good transportation than most people who simply own a car. It is not a bad thing that I work in the wireless industry. And it is absolutely childish and unacceptable that I be attacked for working in it. I am a skilled researcher and an educated person. In all of my work, I keep watch over trends and movements, rather than get caught up in individual hick ups along the way. My opinions are my own. I do not tow the company line, nor am I paid to do so. I am just as capable of speaking out against my employer as anyone else, and am likewise capable of supporting any company (not just my own) for making positive change in this industry. I am not being brainwashed. I do not have company thoughts broadcast into my head. I am not in some drug-dispensing cult. I am not tortured, threatened, beaten, or conditioned with any company thoughts or motives. I am an individual person with individual thoughts. Piss off and leave you bunched up panties at the door, and STOP ATTACKING PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR A LIVING!

    • Josh Brown

      I also work for a living I am a Plumber that tries to do a honest living, I use my phone for work that is why my data is so high, I don’t like over charging for work but when bills go up so must mine. I don’t know how you can defend companies that make 1.9 billion dollars off of only 9 million people. there was a study that says we pay lower monthly costs than the USA yet there was also a study that said the profit off of users ARPU was one of the highest in the world and Profit per user was the highest in the world. The fact that they use Propaganda to try and blind people of the fact that they are over charging them is sickening. I showed you with real math that they should have only raised prices $4-6 a month and if you are arguing that they need to raise that more to off set people leaving then why dont they just treat people better? Give them a new phone every two years give them a good plan that they don’t want to give up, or give them rewards for being loyal. I have a good plan with rogers, I like their service I am happy with them, but I also know that there is a lot of people getting screwed by them as we speak with terrible and expensive plans. Then they just raised them even more under the guise that we had to. When they did not have toraise them by more than $4-6. I appreciate that you work for a living but you have to recognize that for every $10-20 that a plan goes up a month that is a lot of money to some people making minimum wage. Do you think that the share holders need that $20 more than the cashier at Tim Hortons with 2 kids, Or my Grandmother that is on a fixed income that needs a phone to video chat with her family. I under stand a company need to make profits but at a certain point they become greedy not business men. I am not lumping you in with them because you work there but your comments do not reflect someone of the average working class that can barley afford to pay the mortgage.

      Final point if Rogers, Bell and Telus were soooo good to their customers than why do people hate them so much? I am a plumber and I charge a good chunk of change for my work but I stand behind it and give people a break when ever I can. I do not live in a big fancy estate and rip people off to get it. So if they treated people fairly helped them out when they could and didn’t try and squeeze and extra $10 out of people when ever they could people would be loyal happy customers and they wouldn’t scream at you on the phone. I used to pay $320 a month to rogers until I woke up one day and realized that was a 1/3 of my mortgage. Is that not enough from us?

      Look at T-mobile in the states a really good company are their plans crazy cheap? No $70 unlimited everything, is still pretty pricey but they treat their customers with respect and don’t try to sneak in hidden charges or addons they just figure out what it costs them to run a network add on a nice profit and that is what they charge you. Is that too much to ask?

    • ScooterinAB

      “Then they just raised them even more under the guise that we had to. When they did not have toraise them by more than $4-6.”

      I already told you. The pricing went up by $5 per month on most plans, and less on others. Happy? There are no babies being eaten here. There is no propaganda. There is no $50 price increase. There is no $20 price increase. There is no $10 price increase. It was $5. There was a small increase that you admit is acceptable. It is not blood being squeezed from a stone. And if you continue to defend your precious 6 GB data plan, let me point out that you said you use it for work, yet use that much data in order to watch Netflix. Please send me your phone number so I can never hire you as a plumber, because you are obviously watching Netflix at work instead of working. You don’t use your 6 GB data plan for work, so don’t pretend that the Big 3 are muscling you out or giving you the raw deal. You use your 6 GB data plan because you are irresponsible with your data use habits. It’s nothing more than that.

      I’m going to explain, again, what I’ve been trying to get you to understand this whole time. Please stop flapping your gums and listen for a moment.

      Let’s step back and look at real estate. Nearly everyone takes out a mortgage when they buy a house. For the longest time, mortgages were 20 years long. As lifestyles changed, many people began looking for more out of their house. Some people decided to start a business, while others look for more space for storage, entertainment, or a growing family. This (and other factors) led to an increase in the price of houses. Unable to make the higher mortgage payments, banks started offering 30 and 40 year mortgages. But this quickly became a problem, because people where entering into a mortgage for a too long period of time. So now we are back to shorter mortgages. But guess what. The price of purchasing a house has not gone down. People must now put down larger down payments and possibly take on higher mortgage payments in order to buy their dream house.

      See anything familiar in that story? Hopefully you did, because that’s exactly what happened in the wireless industry. Costs went up. Deal with it. You can piss and moan about the Big 3 screwing you and everyone else, but I will restate what I said earlier (that you obviously didn’t read). You choose to pay for a 6 GB data plan. You do not need to pay for a 6 GB data plan. You choose to. Let that sink in for a moment.

      There is no conspiracy, no propaganda, and no underhanded business practices. You chose to buy the product you did, and now you are complaining because you think you were tricked into it. Open your eye and take responsibility for your actions.

      I do not defend the actions of any wireless carrier, but I can tell that they are trying to do right. Doing right does not mean that you cannot make a profit. Doing right means not completely lying to people. Rogers likes to lie to people, but on the whole, carriers here are pretty transparent and the staff that work for them are usually pretty helpful. When a carrier screws up for no reason, I’ll be right there with you against them. But that hasn’t happened here.

      All I can hope to do is continue to point out your choices and radical actions in hopes to educate you, even though it is a lost cause. I don’t challenge and berate you about being a plumber. I don’t go after you because plumbers charge way too much for their services. Please don’t come after me about my job. If you hate the Big 3, that’s fine. But stop spreading your ignorant lies and personal attacks. Stop trying to say that I am being paid to post here, and stop saying my opinions are invalid simply because I work in this industry.

      Grow the hell up.

    • Josh Brown

      you show me proof that the prices only went up $5 and I will admit you are right because I saw plans that were $60 or $70 that are now over $100. Give me numbers.

      I’m flapping my gums? You are the one that writes 3 pages worth that could be written in 1 and none of it makes sense.

      If you work for them you should disclose that in all of your comments because you are going to have a bias oppinion, you want them to take lots of money from us in the hopes that some trickle down to you. But we(99% of Canadians) don’t like companies that make billions of dollars off our backs and then act like there is a crime against humanity when the government wants a little competition in the mix.

      When did I ever attack you? You were the one that first accused me of not knowing math.

      You are the one that says I’m ignorant and hateful.

      All I wanted was you to admit you worked for one of the companies because it shows where your oppinion comes from.

      If costs went wayyy up in the wireless industry shouldn’t we see tighter revenues? or even a loss of profit when they roll out a new network instead of record high profits?

    • ScooterinAB

      When including Canada-wide long distance calling, the cost of service for a 1 GB plan a few months ago was $80. Now, it is $85. Presto. A $5 increase.

      I’m done engaging with you, because you are clearly not reading anything I am saying. I have already told you that I am an independent person with independent thoughts. There is no bias, nor should I be required to disclaim that I work in this industry and know what I am talking about. I have already proven repeatedly that this PERCEIVED price increase isn’t a $50 increase, yet you continue to ignore that.

      You continue to spread your misinformation and lies, mixed with your obvious hate for the companies that have been successful enough to deploy a network in this country. My attempts to refute your misinformed claims are like arguing with a rock. You aren’t even listening to what I am saying and keep trying to make this person. You attack me as a person for working in this industry and having a working knowledge of what is actually happening. You continue to ignore the facts that I am presenting, while putting forward conjectures that are not based on facts.

      I’m done with you. Stop flooding my email with your comments. Do not think that this is a win for you, because it’s not about winning or losing. The ignorant who refuse to accept reason will always be ignorant. I have tried to dispel the myths and misunderstandings that you are presenting, but refusal to acknowledge that you may not be right means that my efforts are wastes. Your hateful rhetoric is a negative influence on my life, and I want to hear no more of it.

      Your facts are wrong, and hopefully in time, you will come to realize that. The grass is not greener on the side that doesn’t exist, and Verizon is not going to enter the market on the back of a magical rainbow unicorn to save Canadians. There is no fact here, and you are simply upset because (the royal) your thoughtless complaints about 3 year terms and restrictions against existing carriers have only hurt you. All actions have consequences, and you have no right to blame carriers for the reciprocation of (the royal) your actions.

      Done. Please leave me alone.

    • Josh Brown

      Sorry if I made if sound like I was attacking you. I am not attacking you I am disagreeing with your point of view and I want you to admit that because they write your paycheck every week you have a different perspective then most Canadians.

      A) You never explain if they are running such a tight budget and wireless companies offer such good deals why did rogers make $505 million last quarter?

      “After-tax free cash flow$ 505″ in the millions, thats right in 3 months they made $505 million dollars on 9 million users. That is $2 billion a year off of 9 million customers.

      Which I don’t care about if you run a tight ship and you give me a good deal and make lots of money that is fine, but don’t complain about the unfair advantage of a US company coming in because it will hurt your profits. Or how sharing towers at a preset cost is going to kill your business.

      Also the reason Bell, Rogers and Telus are giving out Unlimited talk time is because they know that everyone is using less and less talk and more data. They did not do it for the benifit of the customer.

    • Josh Brown

      The Ace X is on all three Carriers I just checked

      Rogers = $224.99
      Bell= $249
      Telus = $250

      So can you do the math now?

  • Josh Brown

    Which one of the Big 3 do you work for?

    This is not the same at all. The Big 3 can still bid on 700mhz it is just that there is some reserved for the new companies. The reason that they cannot bid on Wind is because they want more competition, not another fido, koodo, virgin, Solo, Chatr. How is more choice stupid? How is more competition not a free market. They need this regulation because in the past when they have left it to the BIG 3 they just buy up smaller companies and jack up the prices.

  • Matty Beats

    I wonder how many people are considering the implications of Verizon being a part of our everyday lives. Cellular privacy could go out the window with the market entrance of a US controlled corporation recently implicated in the NSA’s broad reaching PRISM program and other intelligence gathering constitutional neglects. We should all educate ourselves on the terms of this acquisition before taking a side.

    • halcar99

      You are making an assumption that the Canadian leg of Verizon would be put under the same umbrella. If I’m not mistaken, Canadian law would not allow a foriegn country to monitor data created within our borders.

    • halcar99

      How is it you think my priorities are different than yours based on my comment? I down voted your comment because you made assumptions that are probably not true. Something that the Big 3 continue to do.
      I agree if I post data on a foriegn server it will not be protected by any Canadian laws however how does that relate to a Telco based in Canada??

    • gmaninvan

      Agreed. I can’t see the government allowing the backend to be located outside of Canada. CSIS would be all over that.

    • Chrome262

      You are assuming that it is not already happening, CSIS has had a nice relationship with the CIA and NSA for years. Especially with all the terrorism of late and links back here. Do you seriously think that CSIS isn’t picking up a flag for this post right now because we said CSIS, or NSA?

    • gmaninvan

      This is a good point. However, if it is already happening, then it really doesn’t matter if Verizon comes in. The argument is this does not change anything with respect to that.

    • Matty Beats

      I hope you’re right about that, the idea of new competition in mobile is an awesome one for Canadians if properly regulated and implemented. I just want to encourage everyone to do their homework before blindly allowing foreign acquisition. And trust me I’ve been burned by the big 3 too so I’m no fanboy

    • gmaninvan

      Valid point. I get that. I just know that Canada is very protective of it’s sovereignty. I would imagine that there has to be some sort of regulation insisting that the backend stay in Canada.

      That is, of course, speculation.

    • Matty Beats

      I think that’s something we need to vocalize to our representatives. I would just by virtue of having a moral code and a working knowledge of our political and economic systems speculate that the information be required to be processed in Canada, away from foreign government jurisdiction.
      Sadly though this assumptive speculating is often not validated in today’s corporate technology driven world.

      Shout out to your leaders that we retain our sovereignty while encouraging competition

    • gmaninvan

      I agree. The sad fact is that the current state of our federal communications policy is just now being looked into. Up until this year, the cellular constitution was non existent and wireless fell under the same category as radio and television.

      It is a scary thought but I think there is definitely a strong possibility that this is not written into law. You would think though, if it were to occur, in the interest of intelligence, CSIS would put a stop to it but again, speculation.

    • Matty Beats

      The only actual statement that I made was that we as Canadians need to educate ourselves about this acquisition. There were no assumptions made in any of my comments, my follow up comment stems from the recently exposed and well documented news that the other US companies receive secretive requests for data by the NSA and other government bodies. Each of your comments simply focus on your opinion of what you THINK happens with Canadian Law of data collection. Such as your statement that a foreign country would not be allowed to monitor data “created” within our borders. Where do you think your Facebook posts are created? Where do you think they are processed? Also, my apprehension of this takes into account the last time the Canadian government allowed a foreign company to acquire a Canadian one and resulted in the Chinese state-owned oil and gas acquisition of Nexen. All of these things need to be considered before making an assumption based simply on some sort of justice for “evil” ROBELLUS. Short term gain MAY not prove to be the best option. I reserve the right to change my position on this when new actual information is provided, not just opinions

    • kkritsilas

      Your privacy is already at stake. All of the Big 3 are using Huawei equipment, which may already be sending private data to China, and has been banned from being used for commercial networks in a number of countries around the world, including the US and Australia on suspicion of that happening already. In addition, Verizon has already said they will be replacing all Huawei equipment used by Wind when they do buy them at a cost of $100 Million.

      There is no reason to route Canadian phone calls through the US, and so PRISM will not be active here.

      Kostas

  • Ricky

    The bad things is all the cheap plans from Wind/Mobilicity will be gone after Verizon comes in Canada. Verizon might be just abit cheaper than the big3 at the beginning. Don’t think we will see the $40 unlimited everything after. Everyone will pay much higher price plans ($65?) and we will just have freedom to choose from the big4 with the same pricing..

    • Chrome262

      How do you know. if you kept the deals that wind had, after you bought them, you would keep the customers you had, and gained others. And they could easily tell the rest of their customers in the states that its grandfathered lol. I would do that, with the backing of Verizon more people would go to Wind, especially if verizon rents out other frequencies and we can use our old phones on it.

    • gmaninvan

      Exactly, and Verizon could have a trump card too to go with those plans. Cheap US Roaming. Say hello to half of the business clients in Canada.

    • Chrome262

      That is the major point that would have me switch, most of my family is on Verizon, an text to them cost me money, and when i go visit I usually buy a cheap T-Mobile pay as you go so I can use data. If Verizon eliminated that, and I could use my iphone 5 then i would switch.

  • tyresmoke

    Those BS “Fair for Canada” ads is yet another reason I wish a big foreign company runs the big 3 into the ground.

    • Chrome262

      Love to see bell or Rogers just bite it and come crashing down. Then we would have cheaper internet as well lol. Gone would be the back room deals with other providers so we don’t have competition in major cities. And then some company like T-Mobile or Verizon can buy off the pieces, or Fido can go solo again. lol sorry got carried away.

  • kroms

    Thank Goodness some people in our GOV still have sound Minds.

    James Moore you are the MAN !!

  • Robbers Hell Tales

    If Robelus has the balls to spew propaganda, let’s get the truth out, contribute your anti-propaganda message creatively like many others have: Youtube “Fair for Canada Parody”, Google “realfairforcanada” and “four4canada”

  • gmaninvan

    Amen brotha. He also seems to forget the fact that Wind and Mobilicity already have an entire backend infrastructure built. Does he think they are going to just pack up all the servers and move them to the US where the network runs on a completely different technology?

  • James Janzen

    its all a joke, anyone that thinks verizion is coming into canada to help us is ridiculously stupid. prices might come down, but its never going to equal to other countries. canada has a huge landmass and a very small population, on top of that our geography is so unique its impossible to compare. ofcourse companies in europe and the us can lower prices. they have a fraction of the towers we need. less costs for the company = cheaper rates for consumers. WE WILL ALWAYS PAY MORE. i mean do you really think verizions going to lowball the market? im already paying $105 a month for my plan, verizons not going to cut that in half. not while continuing to provide me with comparative service throughout canada.
    just like the new 2 year max contracts, whoever wanted that is stupid too.
    i love the data and roaming caps but give me a break. phone prices arent going down, they’re going up. with rogers youve been able to upgrade after 30 days forever. you just pay the remaining phone subsidy. if youre someone that can make a phone last 3 years youve got yourself a free device. now youre paying $200 for it upfront and get it for a year less.

    all these forced policies are a joke. yes the big 3 are out to make money, but they sure do provide us with a stellar service.

    cable companies are the ones ripping people off with hd channels and useless land lines.

    • gmaninvan

      I agree with this, to an extent. I do think we will always pay more, no question. Our geography demands it. However, it won’t come for quite some time. They will be the little guy, a regional carrier upon arrival. They won’t be able to justify those prices.

      The two year contracts are a good thing. It reduces lock in, even if they are jacking handset rates. The wireless constitution handled that as well, making byod discounts mandatory. I think, with the new rules, you are dumb to buy a device through your carrier when you save 20% for bringing your own.

    • Chrome262

      well, the buy out rate for some devices are similar or more as you said, so the only benefit I see is if you are part of a credit plan, like Fido dollars, where you can use them to discount the full price a bit, without having to sign a contract, and its now an option with the mandatory unlocking.

    • James Janzen

      i know numerous people that haven’t paid for phones for the last 10 years. just because people want the latest devices doesn’t mean 2 year contracts are great. you contradict yourself with your byod comment. as a consumer id rather pay nothing up front and if i need a new device a year or two down the road pay out the subsidy rather than pay 200$ up front and then again 2 years down the road.

    • Matty Beats

      Not sure about “stellar” service haha, but you have to give them credit for building the wireless infrastructure in Canada for all these years and not just buying into the market at an opportune time when a contender goes belly-up.

      I worked for a Telus dealership for awhile and I never saw pricing change too drastically between carriers in any province besides Saskatchewan. A plan that was $85 in Alberta was $65 in Sask. Simply because of their competition with Sasktel and not relying on (what I suspect was) price collusion between the big 3 before the CRTC stepped in.

    • kkritsilas

      The so called ” ….building the wireless infrastructure in Canada for all these years…” wasn’t even paid for by the Big 3. Have we forgotten the famous “system access fees” and “government regulatory fees” that were tacked onto every invoice for every user for over 20 years? Not only did these fees pay for the networks, and their maintenance for the next 25+ years 9at least), they were far in excess of what was required for those costs. The costs for the networks were put on the backs of the consumers; they never came out of the pockets of either the carriers or their shareholders. You will pardon me if my heart doesn’t bleed too profusely for the Big 3 or their shareholders.

  • abc123

    James Moore is a smart guy. He was being interviewed at the local TV station and he certainly knows his stuff. He doesn’t beat around the bush and avoid answering questions like 99% of other politicians out there. Of course, that was when he was thin…

    Hopefully, he hasn’t been corrupted in his time in office. If not, there’s no better person for the job.

    • Chrome262

      LOL what you think the gluttony of the office has changed him? Living “fat” on the hog might of corrupted him, where he likes the extra bacon and doesn’t want to lose it? LOL

    • abc123

      What the f*ck are you talking about?

  • HelloCDN

    Yeah, 3rd world it is… So tell me, premium world citizen, why do you want to pay the same price as in 3rd world, when you live in your cool 1st world?

  • Generalissimo_S

    I can’t believe some of the comments. This obsession with allowing Verizon into Canada to fight the Big Three is incredibly short sighted. The Conservatives are allowing it just to pander to populist sentiment.

    What do you the consumer really want? Unlimited everything for $50/month? $40? LTE? Free premier phone? Then don’t look to Verizon to provide it, just look south or the Europe. Vodafone/Verizon is a premier carrier, not a discount carrier like Wind or Mobilicity.

    • kkritsilas

      Yes, consumers want unlimited voice country wide, unlimited data, at high speeds, caller ID and basic VM for $50/month. Wind provides this for $40/month. So Bell/Telus/Rogers are “premier” brands (please define what premier gets you, other than a higher plan price) carriers, they can charge $50 or $60/month. What is the big deal? Do you thing the costs of running an network vary much whether you are a “premium” carrier (Rogers, Bell, or Telus) or a discount carrier (Koodo, Virgin, or Fido)? Verizon will serve to break up the oligopoly, at least initially. It will challenge the status-quo, and more likely lead to cheaper prices long term. I don’t have an issue with the “premium” brands charging somewhat more, I have a huge issue with them charging 2-3X what WInd charges. Wind is making money, even with all the road blocks that have been put in their way; I see no reason fthat the Big 3 couldn’t make a profit at a 20-50% increase in revenus over Wind.

  • Trina

    I hear Verizon is looking to purchase Eastlnk’s spectrum as well. I’d welcome that! If you can’t compete at the national level than why even compete at all. Bring on the 4 big players…

  • kkritsilas

    Basically, the Big 3 need to wrap their minds around the fact that neither the Government nor the consumer are buying any of what they are selling. They should have wised up to this by now; the PM’s message should have been the end of it. I guess the Big 3 CEO’s have no sense of self respect; any time they go public with their sob stories, they just embarrass themselves even more.

  • PT

    “a ‘level playing field’ and “giving special access to foreign wireless
    companies will hurt Canadians,” plus is “unfair and will have massive
    consequences for Canadians.”
    ———————————————————–

    - A non level playing field if the goverment giving special access to Robellus wireless
    companies that will hurt Canadians.

    - Unfair for Canadians if the goverment would not allow foreign wireless
    companies in Canada.

  • Stephen_81

    So I agree that competition is good for the Market.
    BUT I disagree that Canada can support 4 National Carriers, and at least 3 regional Carriers without hurting the Canadian economy.

    All profits from Verizon would be money LEAVING the Canadian economy, Canadians would lose out on their retirement plans (though I know the Majority would rather spend money on a new phone over saving for retirement) as the favourable taxation of a Canadian company to invest in would be lost putting a major player in the industry outside.

    Canadians favourite past time is hoping Canadian companies fail

    • ra51dft

      that is why I go shopping for groceries ,gasoline and clothes,tools in the US because its cheaper lol

  • Al Chui

    You’re dreaming if you think Verizon is going to empty their bank acct to build out a coast to coast network in Canada. Verizion already does corporate business in Canada so my bet is that whomever they buy will be rolled into that entity, and Verizon Canada will need to borrow money from Verizon USA.

    For the record, why didn’t Orascom (Wind’s original owner/financer) and Vimpelcom (Wind’s current parent company) not dump a couple of billion to build out the network? Either one could have easily afforded it.

    BTW, AT&T didn’t fail they partnered with Roger in creating Cantel/AT&T and Rogers had the option to buy out their interest in it, which they did.

  • Dave M

    I agree 100%

  • J-Ro

    Has anyone done a accurate cost comparison of our plans in Canada versus the plans in the USA?

    I think it would put us all at ease if we know what we were looking forward to. That should be an article here. That would actually be educational.

  • ra51dft

    what is wrong when verizon comes in Canada? what im bothered is these 3 cartels are in cohort to use all media to spew all their black propaganda against verizon. and all canadiots who agreed that these 3 cartels are right to increase their tariffs again must check their heads.

    • Vivs

      Check your head son, your PM is just trying to get some PR by his proposal of Verizon coming into the market, so he can get the attention of all the “canadiots” like yourself for more political support. Any Canadian would agree not to give an unfair business advantage to a giant bigger than these “3 cartels”

Trending News

Other Articles