AT&T mulled entering Canada but determined market couldn’t support a fourth player

Comments

  • ns.dev

    Sure it can, most of us already have lube.

    • Super_Deluxe

      Lmao!

    • Dave

      Bell owns the website BNN.CA

      Makes sense to me why they don’t want competition

    • Travis

      these ad hominem attacks are so weak. people attack the source when they cannot attack the content. to even think bell mobile department has an sway over their editorial department is a joke.

    • que3jxp

      ALL claims that are in favor of the parent company are suspect. This is what disclaimers exist for.

    • Jason

      Then counter it with a valid argumet on why the country can support a sucessful 4th carrier. BNN cannot make up what an AT&T rep said so this angry mob is grabbing for straws as usual.

    • Dave

      They are not objective, that’s all I’m saying . it’s like believing the ads against Verizon enter to Canada.

      And as such, I pr to get information from more reliable sources about the market then bnn. Com or whatever.

    • Yo Yo Ma

      Which ones are the reliable sources on this telecom debate?

      Obviously none that are fully or partly owned by Bell, Rogers or Quebecor. They’d suppress pro-Wind, or pro-foreign companies news and reports.

      Obviously not the ones with populist agendas, because they’d go with the prevailing winds and lash at telecom giants.

      Obviously not left-leaning because they’d bash the govt policy and the private telecom giants.

      Obviously not the right-leaning because they’d support Conservative policies, OR, sympathize with private telecom giants.

      Obviously not industry reports/ academic papers, because they could easily be in cahoots with/ bought out by big telecom. Just this notion alone undermines their independence.

      Obviously not consumer advocacy groups, because, well the name says it all. They have specific agendas they are following.

      So who ? I can’t think of a reliable source (if reliability is measured by neutrality) in this passionate debate.

  • Marcus Brown

    This is why provincial governments should build out their own LTE networks and rent the network to all the telcos. This way more companies could enter the market as they wouldn’t need to invest in building out their own infrastructure. As well as consumers get coverage in more places throughout a province including the highway system which badly needs more coverage. Rural areas it would be a big win for, fast and cheap internet access.

    • alphs22

      This is just shifting your cellphone bill to your taxes.

    • hardy83

      Nothing wrong with that. At least there’d be less for profit mark up added to it.

      Privatizing communications is an INCREDIBLY stupid thing to do.

    • RLC

      Based on your comment you think the European Governments are stupid since they have privatizing their government owned TELCOs. I bet you have not dealt with Government owned agency such as the British Post office when they ran the phone system.
      In Germany phone rates have fallen, service better etc since privatization.

    • hardy83

      I’m not opposed to privatization per say. Yes I think it’s stupid, but comparing us to EU isn’t going to work because their communications industries are very very VEEEERY heavily regulated.
      Our regulations are a complete joke compared to EU.

      I’d be fine with either….Or anything other the what Canada or the US has. lol

      Also I know it’s good to counter an argument about nationalization of something with an example of a BADLY run government arm, but there are just as many examples of good government run arms.

      So to note. I’m VERY much for nationalizing major infrastructure, as long as the government is competent….So in Canada’s case I can’t really say I’m for it right now. lol

    • notla

      The grass is always greener on the other side. Typical whining.

    • RG

      At the risk of getting many down votes and getting into a politics flame war: Nothing wrong with infrastructure spending, which this will be, it is not always the solution but it can work.

    • Super_Deluxe

      Nothing wrong? When the telcos rent, they’ll raise the prices and make us pay for it. So we’ll be paying for the infrastructure and the telcos rent on top of their already overpriced plans. No thanks. I’d rather keep it this way.

    • thedosbox

      You’re missing the point. Having a shared infrastructure should lower the cost of entry, allowing for more competitors – something that many people have commented is desirable.

    • Bhudda Rayes

      Actually, I think you missed the point. Shared infrastructure in Canada with low rates is a joke and a pipe dream. Canadian telco’s invested billions into our cellular infrastructure. And now they’re expected to turn around and share said infrastructure with foreign companies with little to no gained revenue and then be expected to drop their profit margins to compete directly with said leeches?

      lol business, right?

      It’d be a more sound practice if foreign companies were forced to build a network that covered a certain % of population and square mileage before being allowed to share infrastructure, a timeline rollout plan for infrastructure expansion/development and have a spectrum bid cap and price fixing for densely populated areas so new entrants wouldn’t be at a financial disadvantage when acquiring said spectrum whilst building their network across the country.

    • thedosbox

      Maybe you should reread the suggestion made by Marcus Brown instead of spinning the incumbent line.

    • thedosbox

      You missed the bit about recovering the cost by renting out the network to all comers. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.

    • alphs22

      Right, so then the telcos renting the government-owned network will pass on the costs to you.

      Critical thinking is a wonderful thing.

    • thedosbox

      Hint: lower cost of entry = more competition.

      Guess what that leads to?

      Looking beyond your own nose is a wonderful thing.

    • alphs22

      Hmm, a market with no product differentiation with only one outcome is supposed to attract more competition?

      Funny.

    • thedosbox

      If you consider network speed the only means to differentiate your offering, it’s no surprise your world view is so narrow.

    • alphs22

      Right – speed, coverage area, reliability, call quality, etc. – only the most important things that one would need from a telecommunications company.

    • thedosbox

      And yet 650,000 people are Wind customers.

    • alphs22

      Okay?

    • RLC

      The end result of a shared infrastructure with a product that could be considered a commodity is the situation we see with gasoline prices. The price is not really different from brand to brand.
      You could see some differentiation in services provided. In England there is on provider that only deals is customers via email. There is no ability to talk to anyone.

    • CADDMan71

      That’s right, only 650,000. Don’t forget to break even Globalive forecast 1.5Million after their 3rd year, which by the way was December 2012. Their lack of real penetration into the Canadian market is a testament to their failure and a primary reason for that is their ridiculous plan to build out to too many markets too quickly instead of concentrating on their two biggest available markets (Toronto & Vancouver) and get a good reputation in speed, coverage area, reliability, call quality, etc. AT&T saw Wind’s failure up to this point and knew there was no point in entering the market, Verizon saw the same.
      To borrow a phrase from Dragon’s Den, there’s a lot of talk but I don’t see anyone offering any money for your product.

    • thedosbox

      In case you didn’t realize, I was responding to alphs22 who seems to think that people choose a telecom provider based on technical aspects such as speed, coverage area etc.

      650,000 wind customers certainly didn’t.

    • CADDMan71

      That has got to be, quite possibly, the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard. How’s that 100% medical system paid for by the tax payer working out for customer service? Hi, you need knee surgery….please wait a year for your operation, in the mean time thank you for your patience. Don’t get me wrong, I prefer not paying a HUGE bill when requiring medical attention, but using that same model for telecommunication can you image the annual rate increases we’d see, and don’t fool yourself the costs will ALWAYS increase.

    • Paul Figueiredo

      Welcome to Saskatchewan

  • alphs22

    I believe VimpelCom is Dutch not Russian.

    • Sweet

      My understanding is that they’re owned by Russians, but headquartered in Amsterdam.

  • MisterChew

    So where can I find the results of the applicants that applied for the upcoming spectrum auction?

    • RG

      They will be revealed Monday 23rd

  • rgl168

    AT&T *was* in Canada previously as Cantel/AT&T.

    • Sweet

      And when Rogers bought Cantel, it became Rogers AT&T.

    • notla

      Rogers didn’t buy Cantel, they just changed the name to Rogers….

  • jackjiarocks

    Is it that hard to ask for a reasonably priced wireless plans?
    Oh well, guess they shited their pants from “fair for Canada’ LOL

  • Super_Deluxe

    You’re right AT&T, unless you comply with the Big 3’s collusion, you’ll be denied entry just like Verizon. Either stay were you are or join these crooks in disguise.

    • thomas nguyen

      Actually, no company can have a plan without approval by regulators, so one does not undercut another “unfairly”. Hence why, when one has a “promotion” the other 3 follow suit.

    • NotARogersEmployee

      I don’t know how you managed to fit so much stupid into one comment.

  • Dave

    And Bell owns BNN.CA WEBSITE.

    How can one trust this “news”???

  • RLC

    I think the translation of “not enough room” is we can better returns on our capital elsewhere.
    AT&T is looking at significant investments in network upgrades, stock buybacks, possibly expanding to Europe and South America. Some industry analysts are expecting operator consolidation in Europe, especially if some of the proposed roaming rules are implemented, and prices increasing.
    There is also speculation that AT&T is going to sell some of its towers to fund these initiative’s.

  • EvanKrosney

    Almost EVERY developed country in the world with reasonable rates has 4 major carriers (see: Wikipedia page for “list of mobile operators of Europe). Saying that Canada couldn’t support 4 carriers is BS.

    • accord1999

      Just like there are many developed nations with only 3 major carriers, or nations with 3 major carriers and a tiny 4th one.

      Could Canada support 4 major networks, maybe but the lack of success for Wind says it probably cannot, or at least without the charity of shareholders to subsidized Canadians with billions of dollars.

  • Miles Harbord

    When Bell sold off it’s stake in Allstream it stayed in Canada as AT&T, they’re still here, they never left… and no, I’m not speaking about the Rogers part. AT&T US sells services to Canada and uses other carriers to complete their work in most cases.

  • Blocknards

    And SaskTel still exists.

    • CADDMan71

      SaskTel has a VERY small market who’s customers are confined to two cities.

  • Ulysses Grant

    AT&T, please don’t bother coming up North because we already have three companies ripping us inside out. We don’t need another one like you who is already ripping the Americans. Enough that you stay down there.