99

TELUS withdraws from the CWTA

telus

TELUS has decided to pull its support from the industry-funded Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association.

In an email to us, TELUS noted that its “decision to withdraw from the CWTA reflects our desire to continue progressing our highly differentiated strategy and our unique Customers First approach. We are grateful for Bernard Lord’s excellent leadership. He effectively managed a wide diversity of opinions. Bernard has contributed significantly to the development of our industry and we look forward to our continued collaboration with him and his team on initiatives of joint interest.”

This is not the first time a Canadian carrier has declined participation from the CWTA: last year, WIND Mobile, Public Mobile and Mobilicity all stated, “we were promised clear and fair representation on issues of true industry alignment [and] the CWTA has repeatedly failed to honour this promise, leaving us no alternative but to withdraw.”

According to the Globe and Mail, TELUS will still cooperate with the CWTA on existing projects, like the national stolen cellphone registry. TELUS is attempting to separate its brand image from Rogers and Bell, as the three companies are often seen, at least from a trends and advocacy perspective, as a unified force.

  • power_pizza

    “Customers First Approach”

    LMAO

    • It’s Me

      Of all of the big 3, telus has been making the most customer friendly moves over the last few years. They were the first to significantly cut roaming fees, as much as 85% in some cases. they were the first to start unlocking phones after 90 days instead of at the end of contract. Their unlock fees are $35, as opposed to $50 at Rogers and Bell (and Bell was $75). They were the first to voluntarily place a cap on roaming and require the customer to request more roaming and in fact they used tiered caps so that once you hit your cap you don’t just ask for an unlimited roaming disaster again, but request another, say $50, of roaming fees. Most of these changes are now reflected in the new CRTC rules but Telus implemented them long before the CRTC rules were written.

      So, while they are still one of the big 3 cartel, it is true that they have the most customer friendly policies.

      The CWTA was always a joke anyway. They were simply a marketing arm for the cartel, which is why the new carriers all left. No reason for them to pay for marketing for Rogers and Bell and Telus.

      As far as the perception that the big 3 are a unified force, it is far beyond a perception. These guys created the CWTA as a marketing arm. All thing move in lock step with changes that would otherwise hurt a carrier if they did them alone. Bell and Rogers have now created WOW! stores so that they can, together, control the retail experience instead of independent retailers who might not be against selling products for Wind and the others. They are a unified force that has almost always worked together. Kudos to telus for at least trying to break away from this cabal.

    • jfreshdizzle

      WOW is Telus and Rogers… No Bell.

    • It’s Me

      I stand corrected on that point.

    • ToniCipriani

      Shhh… don’t use the word collusion. The angry mob here will go nuts on you and tell you to go build your own network.

    • It’s Me

      I’m definitely not here to praise telus nor any of the big 3.

      But if we are being honest, then no, I don’t think they knew the CRTC code would go as far as it did. And, aside from the term limits, telus and only Telus has implemented almost every one of the requirements on their own. They cut roaming fees years ago. Their roaming caps were at least a year before the CRTC rules were announced. They were unlocking phone, in contract, also for years before the CRTC rules came out. Hell, many of their changes came out before the first, and horrible, draft of the CRTC code came out.

      I am first in line to bash the big 3 and their collusive behavior. But, in this case, I think you are letting your cynicism overtake the facts.

    • ScooterinAB

      Bell and Rogers also had made the vast majority of changes regarding the Wireless Code of Conduct well in advance of it’s implementation (many almost a year before it took effect). The only outstanding change was contract lengths. Every carrier worth talking about had the rest in place or in motion well before.

    • It’s Me

      before it’s implementation, but that’s only once it was announced that it was coming. As compared to telus, who made their changes before the code was even really imagined.

      prior to the code being announced, Telus has capped roaming. Bell and Rogers had not and in fact fought for an extension to implement, arguing that it would take too much time. Telus was doing in contract unlocks way before Rogers and Bell and long before the code was announced.

      Prior to the code being announced, Bell and Rogers had no roaming caps and no data caps, so no, contract length was not the only outstanding change…at least not prior to the rules being announced.

    • ScooterinAB

      I greatly disagree with you, but I’m getting really tired of arguing with people on this site. The changes were in place with all carriers well before the Wireless Code was in place. But I really do have better things to do that go back and forth on speculation.

    • It’s Me

      Depends on what you mean by in place. if you mean simply before the deadline, then sure, kudos to them for taking such initiative to implement what they were ordered to implement but doing so a few weeks earlier than the absolute deadline.

      If you mean before the code was announced, then no, most of the changes were not in place nor even considered, except at Telus, where there were all in place long before the code was even announced (except term caps).

    • ScooterinAB

      No. As I keep saying, the vast majority of Wireless Code changes with all major carriers were in place well before the code took effect. Many changes were in before the code was still being formed.

      A year+ in advance is not simply before the deadline.

    • It’s Me

      No, you are being very dishonest now.

      2 year terms? Nope. Roaming caps? Nope. Unlocking in contract? Nope. Data usage caps? Nope.

      About the only change that you could argue was in effect at all of the big 3 a year before was the tab based termination fee.

    • ScooterinAB

      Now you are just ignoring and trolling me, so goodbye.

    • Peter

      You are correct, most of the code that the CRTC implemented was drafted from practices that telus was following. Which explains why they were that much ahead of the others.

    • It’s Me

      Dude: scroll up in this window. Find the search field and search for “telus roaming” and “cut” or “reduce”. You will see articles going back to 2011 or earlier about significant cuts in their roaming fees. Within 18 months, they cut their US roaming, which started at the same as Rogers, by 85%…and that was done by 2012, way before the CRTC rules were even vapour.

      This also applies to every other point I mentioned. They made these changes before, way before, the CRTC changes were even considered.

      I am fully on board with you with being against the carrier, but I expect one to use reason and facts.

    • It’s Me

      if they made changes long before others and long before mandated and their changes eventually (long after) became the rule, then what else would it be other than precedent setting?

      And while their reductions were spread out, they did so without the other two doing so and in fact continued with their reductions while Bell and Rogers just played dumb and left rates alone. If they weren’t trying to differentiate themselves, at least a little, they would have been better to simply continue to ride the massive cash cow that roaming was. It still is, but slightly less so now.

    • It’s Me

      After Telus made their cuts years ago, the CRTC released their initial draft of the wireless code. Do you remember that? No language about roaming caps or 2 year limits or unlocking. Nothing. So, if telus knew what the CRTC was going to propose ahead of time, they were going way beyond, because the yet to be proposed code was a joke at the time.

    • It’s Me

      Ok, they weren’t ahead of the pack.

      they just made multiple changes not just before the others but before they was any reason to think they needed to. I expect they were indeed paying attention. Their motives for being way ahead of the others doesn’t diminish the fact that they were way ahead of the others.

    • It’s Me

      So, we agree they did it before the others. We agree they did it long before they had to. And we agree they made changes that were not even mandated by the code (reduced roaming rate) long before others.

      So what if they saw it coming and moved before? By doing so and doing so long before required, they left money on the table. Rogers and Bell did not act and continued to claw at those piles of cash. You want to hold that against Telus, so be it.

    • It’s Me

      So they other 2 have implemented tiered roaming caps instead of cap and then free for all? They all have $35 unlocking?

      I’m sorry, while they led on all of these changes, they also made changes they were simply not mandated nor have they ever been mandated nor have the other decided to follow suit yet.

      I never claimed they started a revolution. I claimed they made customer friendly moves before required and before the other. In many case, long before either. I cannot fault them for that.

    • It’s Me

      And they had all of those things before they were required and before the others had them. That is money left on the table they could have instead continued to grab, like their buddies did.

      Also, they have _tiered_ roaming caps, which no other carrier has and is not mandated by the new rules.

      You may not see if as customer friendly, but they were all a heck of a lot more friendly to customer’s wallets than Bell and Rogers policies.

    • It’s Me

      Not sure how you can argue they were well within knowledge of the impending changes, when the changes that were yet to be announced in 2011/2012 were nowhere close to what ended up being announced in 2013.

      They must have strong ESP to have predicted that the CRTC, long known as the industry b*tch, was going to do almost a 180 and go against long held sacred cows within the wireless industry.

    • It’s Me

      So, you’re claiming the CRTC code was as expected? Funny, seems to me that people were pretty shocked that it was as proconsumer as it was.

      I guess in hindsight everything is obvious. Can you tell me, what major changes should we expect to the wireless code in the next 12 months, is any? 24 months?

    • It’s Me

      And until 2013 the expectation was more if the same. Even by Jan 2013, the proposed code was nothing like what came out.

      Your hindsight is amazing.

    • It’s Me

      As of the latest draft before the announce code (last draft was jan 2013) not one of those items you mentioned was covered, except a roaming cap which was going to be as per the carriers’ suggestion an opt in cap. There was no mention of term limits. There was no mention of unlocking.

      The wireless code that we have is massively different than anything the CRTC published as late as Jan 2013.

    • Peter

      You are another example of a misinformed consumer who gets manipulated by headlines.

    • Jay

      Also, don’t forget that Telus was the first of the big 3 to introduce the Device Balance which effectively eliminated contract cancellation fees. They did this well before Rogers or Bell jumped on that band wagon (don’t have exact dates… sorry)

    • AW Sudo

      Agreed. Cut through the fluff and you get: The first to continue plundering and pillaging our customers without being accountable.

    • Raj Brar

      Good for you Telus, we all know how much you wanted competition when you took Wind Mobile to court and tried to buy Mobilicity and Public Mobile (and did).

  • abc123

    “…unique Customers First approach”

    Customers first? OK. How about lowering data plan rates and upping data caps? That’s what customers want. No? OK, I guess it’s really “Shareholders First approach” then.

    • Brian Blanchard

      Well legally their first obligation is to the share holders. Wouldn’t sound as nice I suppose.

    • FM

      These are corporations, not charities. Their goal is to make money, I don’t like the price I pay for gas and groceries either. I think we have it pretty good considering we have the population of California, spread out across 20-30x the land mass, with lower monthly rates, and faster network. I’m all for lower prices, but at least try to be objective about it, put it into perspective.

    • J-Ro

      Your words fall on deaf ears. No one here wants logic. They want Bell reception and Wind prices.

      While we’re at it. I want a Billion Euros, hold the tax. Just for be super!

    • It’s Me

      Wait, are you saying that we have coverage 20-30x larger than Califonia because out landmass is that much larger?

      Sorry, that is simply not at all true. Canada is indeed a huge country. And we have _modern_ coverage across a small, tiny fraction of that landmass.

      Big country != big coverage. It’s just a really poor excuse for high rates.

    • FM

      So are you saying that we have the same land mass and population/sq. m as California? Clearly we have a similar number of people spread out across a greater area, and there is a much larger infrastructure cost for doing so. You think the price for a similar plan should be lower in North Bay, ON, vs Los Angeles, CA? Guess what, the costs are higher. Which City/Country would YOU rather serve first and why?

    • Tyler Phillips

      Most of Canada’s land mass is not populated and has no cellular coverage. It’s irrelevant to compare population densities if the land doesn’t actually have cell coverage.

      For an accurate comparison, you’d need a measure of population per square km of land that’s actually covered with cell service.

    • ScooterinAB

      Yes. 100 up votes yes.

      Our closest comparison seems to be Russia, even though they still have something like 3 times the population density as we do.

    • It’s Me

      Nope but if you look at urban footprints, which is really where almost all of our coverage is, then California probably has more coverage area simply because of the size of their cites and their uncontrolled urban sprawl.

    • FM

      Not true at all, TELUS 4G coverage is 97% of the Canadian population, I am definitely suggesting that in order to cover 97% of Canadians with LTE, one would have to cover a larger land mass than it would take to cover 97% of California. That comes with a cost, a higher cost, because one would think that the population per square km to cover 97% of Canadians is lower than the population per square km to cover 97% California, perhaps I’m wrong, maybe someone has some numbers to disprove this.

    • It’s Me

      Actually, telus claims about 80% of the population is covered by LTE. Which makes sense since just over 80% of Canadians live in urban areas (as of 2011).

      Almost like the cover the urban areas, which is exactly what I said.

    • Jay

      Although I agree with you that it isn’t a great excuse for high rates, it is a necessary fact. If the cost to build a tower is around $1m dollars and you only have 20,000 people on that tower in Canada compared to $1m to build a tower in California and have 60,000 people on that same tower, yes… Rates will need to be higher to support the infrastructure.
      Do I think the CEO of a telcom should be paid $10m/year? No! Do I think it’s necessary that our rates will remain high to support our infrastructure, yes!

    • It’s Me

      We build our towers where there is the highest population density, just like in the US. California has both high density and geographically large areas to cover.

    • Jay

      We also build where there is not many people. Telus covers 97% of the entire population of Canada with HSPA service IIRC. Plus there are all the towers between populations so that the highways can be covered. Look at the MB coverage map and you’ll see the area from Winnipeg to Brandon is covered but there are VERY few people that live there. I know… I drive that stretch about once a month…

    • FM

      While I agree with you that Telecom’s CEO’s, and CEO’s in general, get paid a disproportionately high amount of money, keep in mind that TELUS’s CEO is paid almost exclusively in TELUS shares, aligning his interest with those of TELUS shareholders. He is not paid a $10m salary.

  • Ryan

    more like profits first approach

  • jeff

    Is it just Rogers and Bell left?

  • HelloCDN

    I’m not sure how they expect to differentiate themselves when they are sitting on Bell’s network in some provinces, and basically have a non-compete clause with them…

    • ScooterinAB

      Towers.

    • FM

      Care to elaborate on this non-compete clause? As far as I know they compete heavily in every major city.What they did was very smart, they share network, which lowers their costs, and hopefully retail prices for services, and is good for their shareholders. Instead of crying and complaining, be an owner of their shares and make gobs of money. Sharing network does not mean you have identical services.

    • ScooterinAB

      Towers. We need to make sure we are using the correct language here. Telus and Bell share towers, not a network.

      But yes, you are correct. Tower sharing allows for rapid deployment of a network without investing heavily in infrastructure and battling municipalities over tower construction. Same prices and shared towers does not mean identical services. That is true.

    • FM

      Exactly, there is a lot of misinformation spread around. There are a lot of industries that our government should be fostering more competition in, Banking, Energy, Telecom, Media…instead of whining at Corporations, use your democratic power to put Industry Canada and our Government to task on the lack of true competition, which is healthy for all of us. For example why do we pay 60c/gal differential for Premium gas vs Regular, in the US it’s about 10c/gal. Why do I have to buy 12 Channels to get the 1 channel I want on TV? It’s a function of our government not looking out for consumers.

    • It’s Me

      Good idea. I expect they will tackle only one collusive industry at a time, especially the ones that have parlayed that into becoming monster sized corporations.

      Guess they decided to start with wireless. Glad you are on board, even if you don’t agree with the order the picked as the first to get cleaned up.

    • FM

      It’s probably because the Banking Industry has better lobbyists.
      5 largest “monster sized corporations” in Canada? RBC, TD, Scotia, Suncor, CN Rail.

    • It’s Me

      …one at a time.

    • ScooterinAB

      Except for the TV channel thing (which I think is a trap), I want to up vote this multiple times.

  • ToniCipriani

    Yeah but why would they take it on their buddies Rogers and Bell, they should be angry at the Industry Canada, they aren’t even part of CWTA.

  • Peter

    LOL, do you also complain about similar prices between grocery stores, gas stations, insurance premiums etc.?

    • Peter

      I disagree, this site focuses on one industry and this one industry covers a large selection of consumer goods. Which if you notice have similar prices. Why is it that all high end cell phones cost around the same regardless of where you buy it, same goes for cases, same can be said for Bluetooth headsets. The point is, the market decides what the going rate will be. And the market force is consumers. If we aren’t happy about the price of something don’t support it by buying it. Unfortunately when it comes to the telecom industry, there is a lot of whining by consumers yet they still choose the big 3 hand over fist over the small entrants. Nobody but ourselves to blame.

    • Peter

      You are letting your emotions and hate for an industry cloud your judgement. When you strip everything down to the core, the big three can only get away with whatever consumers let them get away with. Regardless of the product consumers ultimately decide which companies survive and which ones fail. And from the looks of things they choose the big three, one can only assume that we Canadians don’t dislike them as much as commenters on this site would have you believe.

    • It’s Me

      Consumers, in a non-competitive environment, only have so much leverage to effect changes on their own. That’s on small reason why we have a government and regulators.

      hey, look what we did…

    • Peter

      I would argue that it is the government and regulators who created this mess. In essence they tell the big three what framework they are to work in.This artificially forces prices upwards to the detriment of consumers. Case in point the new wireless code. There were a number of good intentions with it but the cost of rate plans went up not down. If we really care about competition we should open everything up.

    • It’s Me

      market forces only work when there is competition. That’s why monopolies and duopolies are not healthy, generally, and cannot be expected to allow market forces to work.

    • David

      Yeah, like there haven’t been any complaints about gas prices or how only a few mega-corporations control the majority of the gas stations in Canada. Bad example.

      As for grocery stores, when I read the weekly flyers, they don’t all have the same food on sale at the same price and if you shop around you will find some stores regularly price some food less than the others and vice versa.

      Same for insurance. Shop around and you will find a wide range of prices and options. This is especially true for insurance that isn’t significantly regulated like auto insurance.

    • It’s Me

      Sure. Any industry where the players collude or otherwise work together should face complaints. Actually they should face investigation.

    • hardy83

      Yeah I don’t worry about potential monopolies and their practices either. Too much trouble to worry about consumer rights and all that.

    • Peter

      I think you have had too much Spaghetti, lol

  • ScooterinAB

    I want to think that this is a bad move for everyone. I’ve worked with umbrella and lobby groups like this. There’s a lot more that these kinds of groups do than act as a marketing body.

    Telus’ withdrawal fragments the industry further, supports opposition rather than competition, and weakens the industry as a whole. I also shows Industry Canada that the wireless industry is no longer willing to act together for a better Canadian marketplace which give it even more power over the industry.

    Not a good thing at all.

    • It’s Me

      They were never acting ” together for a better Canadian marketplace “. They were acting together for their own common good and only their own common good.

      Self regulation, especially of such a tight knit and cozy industry, is a perfect example of the fox ruling the henhouse. We have a real regulator for a reason. It’s about time they started regulating instead of letting the patients run the asylum.

    • ScooterinAB

      Why is the common good a bad thing? Yes, these are huge companies. Yes, huge companies are interested in the profits. But that common good has done a great deal of good for the wireless industry, even if you are pissed off about the price of your bill.

      Love ‘em or hate ‘em, the Big 3 are responsible for the wireless industry in Canada. Fragmenting that doesn’t accomplish anything.

    • It’s Me

      Industry [Wireless] regulation is supposed be fore the good of consumers, the country and businesses, usually in that order. The “common good” you are talking about is only for the industry. Their common good does not always (almost never) align with the common good of the other stakeholders.

      They are responsible, through our generosity and largesse. They should be thanking us instead of screwing us.

    • ScooterinAB

      The wireless industry is for the good of consumers. The Big 3 competing with one another have kept prices where they are. As soon as one lowers its prices, other need to or lose market share. This is the literal definition of competition. Part of their profits are filtered back into network improvements and buying power.

      How is any of that bad for consumers? And why is it so wrong for a business to make money?

    • It’s Me

      Except, in practice, it has been exactly the opposite of that. They raise rates in unison. If one raised rates and the others didn’t then that one might lose share, but they have always raised together. We just saw a perfect example of that with the hikes they implemented using the CRTC code as smokescreen.

      When have they ever lowered rates together? The only time I can think of is when Wind and the others set up shop and they all panicked and lowered rates, but only for a short period of time.

    • ScooterinAB

      I am seeing the exact opposite thing that you are seeing. I honestly have no idea what you are looking at.

      I’ll give you a hint. I work in the wireless industry. Every day, I am finding ways to save customers money. Sometimes it’s giving them more for what they are paying. Sometimes I can only save them a few dollars. But other times (and quite frequently), I can and have saved customers and businesses hundreds of dollars in unnecessary fees.

      You might not see it through tunnel vision, but a lot of costs have gone down over the last year. When you look at the whole pictures, you will see it.

    • ScooterinAB

      I have a post elsewhere on this page that says the exact opposite. I’ve been seeing prices go down for years while carriers are offering more features and larger data pools. Quite desperately for competition, mind you, but progress is progress.

      At the end of the day, Industry Canada keeps saying that prices have been trending downwards. They must have facts and figures to back those claims, even if people choose to ignore them.

    • ScooterinAB

      So Industry Canada is completely lying? Doubt it. Sorry, but you are never going to win that fight. They actively antagonize the Big 3, yet say that prices have been going down. Why would they lie for the Big 3 if they are blocking them at every turn?

    • J-Ro

      If they didn’t have such a tight nit plan to make profit off their rapid expansion, we would have the service we have now. I think we all forget that we have some of the best networks in the world, especially in terms of speed.

      We are right up their with Asia (S. Korea and Japan) who have amazing networks.

    • It’s Me

      At best, that is speculation. If they had their way, they would not have needed to expand and improve their network. Look at Rogers for the best example. They left their 3G network to stagnate for years because they had no incentive to improve it. Only the decision of Bell/telus to move to HSPA+ (because of certain popular phones) and the coming of the new carriers, was enough to incentivize them to improve.

    • J-Ro

      We still have one of the best networks in the world. That should be something to be grateful for.

    • It’s Me

      I am. And after so many years of paying some of the highest rates and yet having some of the worst networks, it’s about damn time. We still pay amongst the highest but at least now we’ve caught up or even beat others.

      For the rates we are still paying we had better damn well have the best network in the world, hands down and for the next couple decades.

    • J-Ro

      Just be glad you are not in Europe. They rates are almost identical with ours and their networks are not so great.

    • It’s Me

      Their rates are way lower. Last time I was in Europe, I got 2GB for $15 for 2 weeks on vodofone.

    • J-Ro

      They still continued to push. They could have just all shared towers with Rogers. As much as we hate them, they aren’t doing terrible.

      This time in a year or two, prices will drop again like they did before.

      remember when $100 only got you 2gb and 500 minutes? We have some a long way from then and it will only keep getting better.

    • It’s Me

      Or prices will go up. Depends on what the decide together and what they think they can get away with. The government’s actions will also have an impact.

    • J-Ro

      The government impact didn’t have much of a positive impact this time. Maybe Videotron with go national and lowers plans to 2012 prices again.

    • It’s Me

      When the government invited and encouraged the new carriers to enter originally, it massively impacted prices. They all panicked and reduced rates significantly, with Rogers even going so far as to create ChatR. That only lasted a couple years, but it shows that government can have a positive impact.

      We’ll have to wait and see what’s next.

    • J-Ro

      We need another Canadian start up to step in. Like Rogers did way back when.

    • It’s Me

      A) Rogers was basically gifted their spectrum and was the only company given national spectrum at the time.
      B) Rogers wireless was AT&T Canada at one time, and the only reason Rogers was involved at all was that AT&T needed a Canadian partner to get around foreign ownership laws.

      So if by Canadian you mean foreign and by step in, you mean we hand them exclusive national license to certain high demand spectrum in a non-auction, bid free process, then sure that could work.

    • J-Ro

      I think that was the plan with Verizon. That could work.

    • It’s Me

      as far as allowing a foreign company, to come in, yes. But they would have had to take part in the auction like everyone else, so not quite as generous as we were towards Rogers. Rogers/AT&T was able to set up with little to no competitive, while Verizon or anyone else would have to build in the face of much larger Canadian deployments.

      It would have been very interesting to see what would have happened in Verizon wasn’t distracted with their gigantic buyout of Vodafone at the time.

    • J-Ro

      I think the buyout was what really stopped them. Likely no extra cash to spare on something like Canada.

    • It’s Me

      yup.

    • ScooterinAB

      Speculation and hatred, not fact.

    • ScooterinAB

      Also speculation and hatred. Industry Canada even admits that costs have been going down over time (with small increases here or there that eventually go away). Services also continue to improve. New media features are becoming common, as have unlimited calling and slowly increasing data pools. Network strengths and coverage have also improved with every single carrier except for the smallest and most broke (I’ll even throw Wind a bone here).

      Speculation and hatred. Not fact.

    • Nik

      6GB of data bundled with unlimited calling and texting on a state of the art LTE network. Sorry, not the same as $30 add-on for a CDMA/HSPA network that barely saw any traffic compared to today’s network loads.

      We have some of the fastest networks on the planet on one of the most vast and harsh geographical scapes on the planet, and even then the prices are comparable to (and sometimes even better than) our neighbors to the south who have more than 10x the population to support their networks that are not even close to 10x larger then ours in Canada.

      I’m going to have to agree with ScooterinAB on this one, just because you think you understand the industry due to the price on your bill… doesn’t mean you have a clue as to what it takes to connect that smartphone to the world.

    • Nik

      Last year Industry Canada killed 3-year cell phone plans “for the people” resulting in the overall time a Telco could recapture the subsidized cost of a $700 smartphone by 1/3rd. That’s why prices went up. Once again, selectively choosing what aspects of pricing dynamics to recognize and which ones to ignore has resulted in a distorted view of reality.

      Things are progressing. That’s why you can have a virtually lagless internet experience on a device you hold in your hand today, and just 2 years ago you couldn’t. It’s not accurate to think that just because a technology has been around a while it should automatically get cheaper. It still costs the same amount (in some cases more) to run a Telco. Prices will stay relatively flat, you’ll just get more value add ons for the same price (like the auto industry).

      Should data and voice plans cost $100 a month, well not really… but then again they don’t cost that much do they? Device subsidies also increase the monthly bill. When you get a $700 device for $199, that spread in cost is also added to your bill each month. Nothing’s free friend. Why don’t you complain about hand set OEMs for increasing the price of their devices even though they continue to realize economies of scale from their manufacturing facilities that lower their production costs?

    • blzd

      “We have some of the fastest networks on the planet…”

      You have been seriously misinformed.

      “…fastest networks on the planet on one of the most vast and harsh geographical scapes on the planet,”

      Check out Australia. They have some of, if not the best wireless and are just as spread out and even more harsh then we are.

      “and even then the prices are comparable to (and sometimes even better than) our neighbors to the south”

      The only way that could be close to being true is because of Wind and the other small players which are NOT offering LTE. Big 3 are all MUCH more expensive then comparable plans from the south.

  • Guest

    I feel the same way, I always see those oil companies change their rates as the same time as each, why isnt shell at 1.40 and esso at 1.20. Right, they must be working together on a price fixing scheme.
    oh man, and don’t get me started on the price of those cartel of bakers have on bread.

  • Ren596

    Yes I’M supprised Sid Company Has NOT thrown A Bigger Temper Tantrum

  • madhunt

    I keep reading that all three are the same, that there’s no difference in any of the Big Three. But here’s some facts, and they’re easily proven. TELUS has the lowest churn rate, so less people are leaving their network than the other two. TELUS has the lowest customer complaints by a long shot. TELUS is the most philanthropic of the three, giving more than twice as much as the others to charities, etc. TELUS is LGBT community friendly…take a look at their CAYA (come as you are) stores. TELUS wins.

Trending News

Other Articles