New report says Canada needs to address the high cost of communication services

Comments

  • Cellphone Guy

    the gouge an screw mentality of mobile, data and cable plus internet is insane . that people keep running out to get expensive new phones and get locked into services for years. I went to wind because it was affordable yeh it has its limits but not having to be locked in in a time of economic uncertainty has a sense of peace of mind.

    • BriniaSona

      They told me that data was so low and prices were high because if it was cheap, no one would buy thier home internet or phone packages. So by keeping data amounts low, they force you to pay 80 bucks for the phone and then buy thier stupid home internet plans.

    • Surveillance

      There will forever be economic uncertainty that’s the lamest excuse in the books.

    • Cellphone Guy

      Really so the people who got a job a year ago and then cthe company tanked halfway through there 2 year phone contract makes sense you. Layoffs and companies relocating all over the place . sure put everything on credit pay 150 a month for a cellphone service makes sense. .

  • BriniaSona

    Why did they need a report for this?

    • To send some kind of wake-up call to the CRTC?

    • BriniaSona

      I can go on any Robelus site and see that their prices are high and their data amounts are abysmally low. No need for a report.

    • power_pizza

      They need reports because they have to assume their decisions are going to be scrutinized and possibly even taken to court. They’re doing their due diligence.

    • John W

      We can only hope something comes of it, but i am not confident in that happening.

    • PT

      Everytime CRTC tries to help, Canadians get screw even harder.
      Look at your wireless bill now vs 3 years ago.
      Lastest news that these scumbags CRTC tries to help your cable bill. The providers will increase your internet price.
      At the end consumers end up paying more.

    • Laer

      The CRTC isn’t really behaving anti consumer, it’s the fact that anytime they try anything robellus uses it a a massive excuse to jack to prices.

      Don’t buy into the misdirection here. Robellus has it coming and the CRTC will not take it much longer.

  • John W

    Old news, we get bent over on internet / phone / cable service, the question is whats the fix and how do we get the general public on board with it?

    • BriniaSona

      The fix is this, the rich make more money, the poor suffer and barely scrape by. This will always be the fix. Well the rich peoples fix at least.

    • SycloneRob

      Then speak with your wallet and if you really can’t afford it then cut the service. this way you keep the money out of the rich people’s pocket and keep it into yours!!

    • Kasey13

      The “problem” is that poor people need to survive and everything needed for that survival puts money into the pockets of the rich.

    • SycloneRob

      Since when did you need wireless to survive????? Of coarse it usually goes to the rich, you just get to pick which rich person you want to give your money to Or not to. Now if your talking about stuff that you really need to survive like food or clothes then yes it goes to the rich.

    • Kasey13

      You said “this way you keep the money out of the rich people’s pocket and keep it into yours!!” I was not saying that poor people need wireless to survive, rather that they can’t keep the $$ in their own pockets. Eventually $$ migrate towards the rich no matter what you do.

    • PT

      First thing, get rid of CRTC (biggest waste of taxpayer money)
      People need to unite and boycot Robellus + Shaw .

    • SycloneRob

      I agree 100%

    • jayzon12

      Unfortunately boycotting Robelus is not an option for alot of Canadians. i would say a better solution would be people boycotting data and going on voice plans and than they would have to lower the prices to entice people into getting data again. The only problem is that people will not do this as they believe that data is a necessity and will pay these prices to make sure they are connected.

    • P1l0t3

      A fix would be a fourth big player. In France, when there was only 3 big players in telecomm, a new entrant made a big wave. It’s name : “Free”. All the prices went to about 50% in a year. Of course with low prices, some shortcuts exist. For this example, you had to be lucky not to have to call their customer service, i.e. hoping the hardware your receive is working and not DOA. Nowadays, with 4 players, for less than 100$ a month you have a residential phone, cellphone, tv (100+ free channels) and unlimited internet (plus free call for almost all the countries).

    • P1l0t3

      And Free was in the ranks to buy T-Mobile in the US, but didn’t made the cut unfortunately. So we won’t be seeing them around here in the near future… it would have been so great to see them here !

  • TomsDisqusted

    Yes, I think the quality (speed, etc.) of our services is fine, but I’m shocked at how much the families I know spend on these services.

    And when I talk to friends in other countries, they too are shocked at how much we pay.

    The CRTC has started doing little things to improve their popularity with consumers – they should also work with the competition bureau to improve competition in our telecom sector.

    • PT

      How? Prove it! Robellus troll.

  • Eluder

    Internet prices here are comparable or cheaper to the US, if you look at Comcast, their 105/20 costs $79 USD per month where Rogers is $85 for 100/10, with the weak dollar, this means we’re actually paying less. Mind you wireless prices here in Canada are a ripoff though.

    • Anon-e-mouse

      Isn’t wireless where the Big 3 make most of their profits?

    • St. Misery

      Actually it’s where the profits are smallest, just revenue that is high. Factor in the cost of device subsidy and customer service, cost of acquiring and retaining customers and network upgrades and maintenance, it get very expensive for the carriers. That being said, for what you pay in monthly fees they could certainly give you more for your money.

    • PT

      Keep going robellus troll …

    • JTon

      Actually, he’s right. It’s public information. Profit margins are higher on cable/internet service

    • johnx

      not on Rogers. it was there biggest revenue stream by more than 2x what cable was.

    • JTon

      Yeah you’re right, revenue is higher. But the profit margin (fraction of revenues that the company pockets) on cable/internet is better. What OP is saying is the carriers aren’t gouging as much as people think. It’s really expensive to roll out new wireless technology every 2 or so years. Be mad at the wireless equipment vendors too

    • SycloneRob

      They make the most profit on wireless compared to Wireline services.

    • SycloneRob

      Exactly. Wireline services is more inline with the costs of the network/profit. Wireless on the other hand is out to lunch.

  • Steve

    Consumers need to watch what they push for. 2 year contracts led to higher subsidy on phones. Same thing will happen with cable now.

    Under the working of the services and all the fees and lisences involved to operate these services. The price of the hardware everyone enjoys, people just want the newest things but don’t want to pay for it.

    If you don’t want to pay for the convience than stick with your flip phones and home phones.

    Not defending the providers here but consumers think if they cry wolf with the crtc it will get better. But what no one ever factors in are all these extra cost. You think that the $800 phone your enjoying was subsidized to the service provider from the manufacturer, think again. We all are how much Apple, Samsung, Google have.

    • Wufai

      Steve, you need to seperate CRTC’s decisions on taking action of consumers wants and consumer needs! 2 year contracts is a consumer need. Yes it ended up with consumers having higher phone costs and wireless plans, but it also saved a lot of customers stuck with a broken phone after 2 years of contract who couldn’t afford a new one without a contract. CRTC has to cater to all Canadians, including the uninitiated ones.
      And I don’t think CRTC’s actions leads to direct wireless bills. It’s more like an reaction of the telecoms to CRTC out of spite than necessarity.
      CRTC does do something well, such as limiting the data overage to prevent customers suddenly getting $10,000 bill at home or overseas.
      I think CRTC does have a place in our wireless industry right now, like most Canadian companies we take our process slow, but it is better than depending on the wireless companies taking initative.
      Right now I’m faced with a problem with my relatives visiting Toronto. I just noticed how our prepaid plans rates are even more expensive than 3rd world countries. If I go to the States I can get ROAM mobility for 400MB/day at $4. So far in canada best rate I can find is 750mb/30days @ $50.

    • SycloneRob

      And this right here lies the problem. People that get phones they truly can’t afford. If a 3 year contract is too much then buy your own phone that you can afford and go month to month. even now the contracts are not really contracts you are stuck with as if you want to leave early you just pay out the remainder of your subsidy.

      Of coarse our rates are higher then 3rd world countries. So you want 1st world service for 3rd world prices??? Give your head a shake. Your hourly wage is higher then 3rd world maybe that should be reduced to a typical 3rd world wage. Sounds dumb right?!!

    • Wufai

      You should seperate the issue of people buying what they can’t afford (which I agree) and Canada’s wireless pricing being too high.
      Canada’s has the highest wireless pricing in terms of our average wage. and its not because of technology or geographical location, it’s more because we are restricted by lack of real comeptition.
      Take a few cases for example. Canada being so ‘advance’ we still can’t get underground coverage in Toronto’s TTC. In Hong Kong, all subway tunnels are engineered to get cell singal from all 6-7 carriers.
      I can buy a ROAM sim card to USA and get 400MB of data for $4/day. There are no such options in Canada.
      In Manitoba, Fido has a $55/5GB plan, in Ontario its $94/5GB. a $40 difference. Is Manitoba somehow making 50% less than an average person in ON so that their wireless plans are cheaper?

    • SycloneRob

      I don’t disagree that wireless is too high. But people forget that they (sometimes I know wind isn’t every where ) can vote with their wallet. competition works if you have a company that offers similar service for a cheaper price. Wind has to offer a cheaper price as they are not offering the same service as the competitors. Now if wind was the same as ro bell us and still offered their cheaperror prices then yes competition will get the others down but if they didn’t because their shareholders wants maximum profits then no it will not change a thing.

      As for the ttc subway system coverage. Who should pay for that? Should it be the ttc or the wireless carriers? Imo it should be the ttc. so in Hong Kong who paid for that is a good question that needs to be answered.

    • Wufai

      In Hong Kong it was crystal clear. The wireless carriers pays for it. Wireless carriers sees it as a customer demand. Some wanted exclusive rights but the subway said no. So either the wireless carrier pays 100% for the installation or groups of telecom can band together and make 1 installation to save costs. The installation fee is then carried out as a subway surcharge for wireless customers. Customer than have to decide if the surchage is worth it for them to stay with carrier.
      I know Canada is large and not every single user uses the Toronto subway. But that’s for the Wireless carriers to figure out.
      I’m just surprised everywhere else in the world there are reception on subways but Canada still can’t figure out such a simple problem.

    • jayzon12

      I wish I could like this twice. Very well said

  • cartfan88

    “Canadians that earned $17,380 in 2012 spent about $1,538 on wireless and broadband that same year.” That tells me that some people live beyond their means by choice. If prices were cut they would probably be the same people to go get a new flagship on a financing plan. The whole tone of this rabble “human rights violation” is just comical. Using a food bank so I don’t miss my twitter feed? Give me a break. Sure prices are high here…but this takes the argument into the absurd.

    • The Dude

      Clearly you haven’t a clue what the worldwide standards are for pricing these services. If you did you’d be singing a different tune.

    • Garrett Cooper

      You’re right, Canada is high. So is the quality of life. He’s right though and I thought the same thing reading this. If you’re making $17k/yr, you shouldn’t have a huge communication package, and should probably only have a cheap voice plan. But people always live beyond their means.

    • The Dude

      You both miss the point in its entirety. The bottom line is that more and more each day these services are becoming a total necessity and not a 1st world luxury. As such, they need to be treated more as a required utility, and have an appropriate price tag based on actual cost to produce/provide. The rest of the world is moving towards this goal, while companies run by westerns are abusing people like the mob would.

    • Garrett Cooper

      You’re kidding me right, a necessity to have internet,
      cable, and a mobile with v&d? I think you’re missing the point, these ARE
      NOT necessities if you’re making $17k/yr! You can go to the library and use
      free internet for doing online education to further improve yourself, and look
      for jobs and send out resumes. Mobile data and home internet are not necessities.
      Yes many countries are cheaper, they are also significantly denser in terms of
      population/land mass. Don’t get me wrong, our prices in Canada are way too
      high. That isn’t the point I’m making. The point I’m making is if you’re in the
      income bracket this article is talking about, you shouldn’t be having these
      kind of expenses. It’s called responsibility.

    • SycloneRob

      Having a home phone and Internet service should be a requirement but the LUXURY of phone mobility Imo is not. You can get cheap home phone service and reasonable price Internet service That will work within your means.

  • TheShinraCorp .

    It’s true that these prices are expensive without justification (besides making shareholders happy) and if anyone uses the excuse of “Canada is a large country” then why are Russian telecoms charging cheaper prices? It’s really all to make a profit. Their infrastructure is a mess and penalize third party ISPs for using the lines that they’re renting, they purposely make it terrible so that customers can go back to one of the big three (or 4 If you’re in Quebec)

  • Yup… Rogers told me my long standing account at 56.xx with 6gb of data promo price expires in August. I’ve had my plan for years, but they found a loophole to force me to pay $80+ whether I want to or not.

    At this point I’m saying F it, I’m switching to wind mobile for 35 unlimited everything. I’ll take the downgrade to save $40 per month.

    • The Dude

      Good show. Now only if more people were like this we’d actually get somewhere.

    • Garrett Cooper

      To some it’s about coverage. I don’t want to be roaming when I go biking/snowboarding in the mountains. I pay $55 for everything, I’m cool with that to have bulletproof coverage everywhere. Back home the coverage sucked but out west on Bell, while it might not be cheap, I’ve never had a network issue. Rogers back in Ontario, well that’s another story.

    • KiwiBri

      when did they tell you that? Did you get a note in the mail or something?

    • theres no wind outside the cities. no point for me

  • Thomas Conway

    Another failure for this Conservative government…. Remember they were going to tackle that issue. But it was mythical along with the “Economic Action Plan”.

    Forget the CRTC. It is a classic example of regulator capture by industry. It has become nothing but an industry advocacy group on our dime.

    Whenever someone says these things (that should be obvious to the most casual observer) it is dismissed as bitter comment or anti-Harper. Until we accept the facts, we keep paying.

  • Brandin Chiu

    This article serves as a good reputation of a conversation that should be happening. We have seen an exponential rise in wireless prices over the last few years, most in which is due to mistakes by the CRTC in their attempts to help, or to simply placate the public. What’s worse, is last year, the Conservative government was riding high on the mobile propaganda ads touting how we were all paying less than ever before. While technically accurate, was still misleading.

    Approximately 3 or 4 years ago, the CRTC proposed a new set of rules as a way of addressing some growing concerns within the public. Most of these rules proved unnecessary, as many wireless providers had already began changing prior to the announcement. The most popular change, however, was a requirement for the removal of three year contracts in favor of a two year model.

    At the time, the majority of people were celebrating the changes. However, they weren’t thinking it though. Because of this change, device subsidies went down, and payment plans increased drastically in order to help preserve the carriers’ bottom line being amortized over fewer years.

    The idea was to help encourage competition because users could now more easily switch between carriers. This is of course completely useless if all of them are offering the same prices, and does nothing to help alleviate the actual concern: plan pricing, instead of plan term.

    For those who don’t remember, around the same time these changes were proposed, all three major carriers were selling a promotional 6gb data plan for 60.00/month. But really, it had been a promotion for over a year, so not really. Now, to get that same amount of data, we’d be paying over 100.00.

    Changes like this only further hurt the people on the bottom, and only really help the people who can afford higher prices anyway. At the same time, providers are even charging more for bringing your own device – – which makes even less sense.

    Here’s the point of this text wall: this conversation needs to happen. If we’re to see effective change in Canada, we need to be discussing the right problems, otherwise we’ll get stuck with another ‘fix’ that just makes things even worse.

  • CharlieFox

    Internet is the future. All concepts of futuristic sci-fi movies and shows have a reliable wireless communication. I’m surprised it’s not considered essential/utility like water and electricity yet.

    • jayzon12

      The reason they can charge what they do is because even though it is not essential because we could live without it people pretend it is and are willing to pay crazy amounts for it.

    • Davan Mills

      …which is why Robellus has tirelessly lobbied to keep the classification of their services as nonessential. Government’s power is much broader in the domain of essential services and their so-called “common carriers.”

  • Motoroid

    The Canadian Government should be embarrassed and its very unfortunate that some third-world countries have better access to internet!

    • PT

      And wireless.

    • jayzon12

      What third world country have better access to internet than we do?

    • Jim D

      Africa gets cheaper Internet than we do. Lmao I’m kidding I don’t actually know

  • Who Needs Facts

    I made it this far into the report.

    “PIAC received funding from Industry Canada’s
    Contributions Program for Non-Profit Consumer and Voluntary Organizations
    to prepare this report.”

    So Industry Canada and Mr. Moore commission a report to tell us what he wants us to hear.

    If this had been funded by Robelus the outrage would be palpable but at least a Robelus report would not funded by the very public Moore is trying to fool.

    This is low, even for the Cons, and that is saying a lot.

  • Gordon Reid

    Bell tablet flex plan – $20 for 1GB
    $40 for 5GB

    Fongo app plus in app purchase of 6 months Canada wide unlimited text for $9.99

    Put sim card in phone, start saving money

  • Robert Young

    And in other news..water is wet

  • Baris

    Excuse me all but all these reports are “Fart in the wind” for big 3 and policy makers.

  • Waqqas Khokhar

    Everyone knows we pay more.

    But you have to keep in mind that in Canada we have to maintain an infrastructure that’s more expansive than the US, yet the consumer base is no more than one-tenth of the consumer base in the US. The cash to run, maintain and build the networks has to come from somewhere.

    Also, don’t forget, that even though we pay more, the quality of our services is also amongst the highest (read it on the web sometime last year).

    • KiwiBri

      Cant always use this excuse. Countries like Australia and NZ have similar issues and have far superior plans and devices over the years.

    • jayzon12

      If you look at all the costs the plans are not that much cheaper here than there. If you go with a second string company it can be much cheaper but if you go with their provider that has service across the the country their prices are very similar

  • kkritsilas

    The issue is that Industry Canada (IC) and the CRTC don’t have the backbone to do what is needed. Industry Canada needs to take back all unused 800-900 MHz spectrum that is not in use by the Big 3, and offer it to new entrants only. The CRTC needs to come out with some realistic rulings, something along the lines of the lowest data plan that can be offered is 1GB or 2GB per month (none of this 300 MB of data on a $70/month plan garbage) with voice for $50/month maximum. And enforce i, none of this “after the current contract expires” stuff. Make this ruling take effect immediately, like they did with the banning of exclusive roaming agreements.

    As for those on here the believe that the CRTC mandating a 2 year maximum term for cell phone contracts, please be so kind as to let us all know why a) the data in the plans went way down, and b) why the increase in plan prices was far higher than what the increase in the monthly subsidy amount? Yeah, I know, Rogers needs to finance the absurd price they paid for the NHL broadcast rights (which btw, should not be allowed to impact cell phone prices, if the proper regulations were in place).

    • jayzon12

      With this mentality why would they not take back all the unused spectrum from the new entrants as well? They cant just take back spectrum that these company’s paid Billions with a B for. That would open up the possibility of them just taking your house even though you paid for it because someone new just moved to the country and you don’t need all that room.

    • kkritsilas

      Because the Big3 NEVER PAID For their 800-900 MHz spectrum. They were given the spectrum in the days before there were spectrum auctions. The only costs they have paid are the yearly licensing fees. So, the Big 3 are sitting on unused lower frequency spectrum licenses they never paid for, and as time has shown , will not deploy The new entrants paid for the spectrum they have, and are being forced to deploy.

      They have not paid for anything with a “B”. They have paid with a capital ” N”, as in NOTHING.

    • SycloneRob

      They may have gotten for free but they did spend billions of dollars over the years to get the network we have today. It’s easier today to be an entrant on wireless compared to 20 years ago especially back then they didn’t have nearly the subscriber base. Yes they get the grandfathered spectrum for the length of the contract. If you want to go that way the they shouldn’t grandfather a wireless plan you may have when prices go up, just take the plan away.

      I get it that you don’t like the prices as I don’t either but That’s the contract the big 3 got on that spectrum and we have to wait till it expires.

    • kkritsilas

      The fact that they have spent billions is a red herring, and if you understood the history of the cell phone industry, you would understand that. However, let me remind all of the $10-20/month “Network Improvement Fee”/”Network Access Fee” that was collected for over twenty years by the big 3. Every month, on every contract. For over twenty years. I have no doubt that those fees have not only paid for the existing networks, but for their maintnance going forward for the next 20 years, if not longer. So, no, they did not pay for the networks, the users did. They did not pay for their spectrum, they were given it. So my sympathy level for the BIg 3, considering exactly what they got for free, and what they were allowed to charge over and above (granted, with the approval of the gov’t of the day) is nothing but pure profit.

      As for it being easier to be a new entrant, that is blatantly incorrect.

      Go back to say, 1985. You are an established telecom or cable operator. You apply for, and are given, spectrum, free. You in addition, are permitted to charge, above and outside of the plan cost, an added $10-20 per user, each and every month to pay for the network you are putting up. You start to roll out a network, gain customers, all while your costs are essentially the up front cost of establishing the first few towers prior to having a substantial number of customers.
      A year later, you have 1-2 million customers. You can charge whatever you want, as there is only one other player in the game (its either Rogers or Bell/Telus). Your network improvement fees are generating $10-20 Million a month, half of which you pocket or declare as profit, and half (maybe) which actually goes into network improvement. If you need more money, you always have your cable customer or wireline revenue (both of which are massive cash cows) to fall back on.

      Fast forward to 2007-2008. You have just bought yourself some AWS spectrum. You have already put out a few hundred million dollars. Your incoming revenue is zero, you haven’t even started to operate yet. You should be able to get going real fast, because the government, as part of the spectrum bidding process, guaranteed roaming and tower sharing. However, the only roaming agreement you can get costs $1000/GB, and using the “imminent use” and “future use” parts of the tower sharing section of the tower sharing regulations, you can’t get onto any of the Big 3’s towers. So now, you need to build out your own towers, with no customer base (you have neither cable customers nor wirelines customers (obviously, not applicable to Videotron)), and you are already in hole for hundreds of millions of dollars (what you spent on the spectrum). So you slowly start to roll out your network. You offer plans that are cheaper than the Big 3 as incentives in order to attract customers. Big 3 respond by launching flanker brands (Koodo, Virgin), allowing them to reduce their plan prices to be more competitive with you. Of course, the Big 3, playing the long game, can set plan prices to whatever level they want, they have revenue from wireline and cable (not to mention satellite, long distance, and backbone).

      Who do you think had the easeir time of it, in reality?

    • jayzon12

      All though I agree that is is much more difficult for a new entrant to build the business, when the big three started their run in cellphones there was also a great risk in it as there was nothing guaranteeing that cell phones would get this big or profitable. They took a risk and it is paying off. IMO the bigger issue is that aside from regional carriers I don’t believe that any of the new entrants (Wind, Mobilicity, or public mobile) had any interest in becoming a long term brand they all did the minimum possible to launch and scoop up as many subscribers as they could so that they could sell to one of the big three for a large profit. Now that is not being aloud and so they are scrambling to change their business plans and try to make a run at it. The problem is that for a forth carrier to come in they would need to invest a crazy amount of money to be able to make a real run than they would not be offering 30 dollar plans as it is not sustainable. I believe there is a middle ground that would make more sense for a new entrant and consumers long term but only the regionals (videotron, sasktel and MTS) have figured that out so far.

    • kkritsilas

      At this point, Wind is that middle ground. Their plans are in the $45/month range, which I believe to be sustainable. As Mobilicity has proven, a $25-$30/month plan is unsustainable. I would have no issue with Wind charging $50/month for unlimited voice & test, and 5GB of data.
      Wind is also the only non-regional carrier outside of the Big 3 that operates in multiple regions. If they were to roll out a network that could go across Saskatchewan and and Manitoba, they would have coverage from the west coast to the Quebec border.
      As for your point about whether the new entrants were in it for the long haul or not, I think that some of it is true, and some is not. I think Wind was in it for the long haul, I know Public wasn’t, and I’m sure Mobilicity wasn’t. Public started with a CDMA system, which was an indication right there that they didn’t think too far into the future (i.e. they weren’t going to be around for long). Shaw is another enigma: some think they were a straw man for Rogers; buying up spectrum in Western Canada as a new entrant, and then when the 5 year term of the AWS spectrum auction was up, they would sell it to Rogers. Industry Canada (by some act of divine intervention) actually saw what was going on, and put an end to spectrum transfers to the Big 3. So what does Shaw do now? They are sitting on a lot of AWS spectrum in Western Canada, they show no indication of even starting to roll out a cellular network, and they cannot sell the spectrum, and the 5 year deployment rule, which hasn’t been enforced by IC, can be at any time. I would be concerned if I had any money invested in Shaw.
      Long term, I think what will happen is this: Mobilicity will cease, one way (bankruptcy) or another (buy out). to exist. Their spectrum will either go to whoever buys them (i.e. Wind) or It will revert back to IC, who will auction it off, again, with set aside for new entrants. Shaw will probably lose its spectrum. After all of that comes about, either Videotron and Wind, or Videotron and Eastlink will merge. And you will then have a 4rth carrier, it being Wind/Videotron merger & Eastlink, or Wind & Videotron/Eastlnk merger. Whichever form it takes, it will be much like Bell/Telus is now, each takes a section of the country, with cooperative agreements to tie them together.

    • shmaya meir

      how much exactly are you paid by Robellus.

    • Laer

      You are speaking to the symptoms.

      Cure the desease. Functional depression
      Seperation – network providers now only wholesale to virtual network providers that retail front end services to consumers.

  • Peter

    There are so many options out there, if you are paying $100 a month for a phone then that is your fault. The costs of plans are expensive if you are a heavy data user but you can get unlimited calling and a bit of data for around $50. No amount of government intervention will help eliminate the uninformed consumer.

    • and where is this wind in the country? we only have telus here and bell and rogers. and some other no name groups.

    • shmaya meir

      You said “no amount of government intervention will help eliminate the uninformed customer”

      For which the big three are eternally grateful, I am sure!!!

  • phreezerburn

    Well at least we beat Turkey for costliest data services on planet earth.

  • SycloneRob

    Maybe the government at all levels should also look at themselves to see how high taxes are. If funny how they have no problem with even gas companies charging an arm and a leg for fuel even though crude is below 45 bucks a barrel. Who am I kidding they go after things that have little effect to their revenue streams. I do agree that some of these services are expensive but the Faster home Internet packages are decently priced. Imo. Wireless I will agree is high. I don’t call TV an essential service nor even a cell phone. Internet and home phone I would agree that it should be an essential service. Now before mobile syrup chops my head off for saying this the reason I feel wireless is not essential but home phone is that I feel the convenience of mobility On a phone service is a luxury hence why it costs more then a home phone service. problem today is that a lot of people think they are entitled to everything for nothing. More and more people are in debt to their ears because everyone wants to keep up with the jones’ .

  • JD

    End the collusion and let outside competition in. Or don’t sell off crown communication companies for pennies on the dollar.