CRTC calls for comments on the subject of Wi-Fi-first MVNOs

Comments

  • Bill___A

    Making the carriers sell capacity at low cost to bottom feeder type carriers which are unwilling to put up their own network is not going to lower the oversll costs. Since wi fi networks are difficult at best at the moment, they are not ready to accommodate a wi fi first carriier, at least from what I have seen by having wi fi calling on for quite some time. Is the CRTC going to give the big three a spectrum rebate? One needs to look at the big picture and not just grab at the low hanging fruit which may be fairly rotten.

    • Leo Perry

      Your first premise is blatantly untrue. See the United States or Europe for examples of why allowing pure MVNOs (i.e. those that are not required to be “Wi-Fi first”) do in fact contribute to lower prices.

      On the other hand, “Wi-Fi first” is problematic, because the handoff to and from LTE is far from seamless (“difficult”). It’s like experiencing the dropped Internet connection as you walk out of the house; most phones simply cannot maintain a steady connection when switching from Wi-Fi to LTE. Although there have been efforts to mitigate this jarring transition (e.g. Google Fi, caching, etc.), I fear that the end-user experience will be awful enough to sink many prospective “Wi-Fi first” MVNOs. People will not be happy to learn that their calls risk dropping as they walk around!

    • Bill___A

      I just don’t believe that is the way to do it. Sugar mobile has no right to offer national service considering the small amount of towers they own in the north. Do you think they are doing it “for the good of consumers” or to line their own pockets by having a product which is costing them little to maintain? At least the “big three” make their money the old fashioned way.

    • Victor Creed

      “at least the big three make their money the old fashioned way”

      Collusion is old fashioned?

    • Bill___A

      One of the big three is not going to cut their prices to the bone and make their network not function properly. Disruption should happen by innovation, not by giving MVNO’s something to sell that they didn’t pay for.

    • Victor Creed

      Nice side step. Why doesn’t the Big 3 have unilateral pricing in Saskatchewan or Quebec?

      Oh yeah! Competition. If the 3 scumbags wanna collude on pricing and gouge Canadians endlessly then it’s time we got MVNO’s to force them to compete.

      Which carrier do you work for? Bell?

    • It’s Me

      Serious? Spectrum rebate? That’s the best script they have for you now? They were given the rebates right at the start when they were gifted their spectrum in bid free assignments, when they were promised no foreign competition for many years and when they were allowed effectively to write their own regulations.

      You shills always forget that regulation of wireless is what protected and allowed the big 3 to become the monsters they are. That was the point and mission accomplished, job done. Now it is time for regulation to meet its other objective, which is to benefit Canadians, something that has always been forgotten as a priority.

    • Bill___A

      Although we don’t have “unlimited wireless internet”, we have a lot of other unlimited things, such as calling, texting, etc. We no longer pay extra to travel a half hour out of the city. At one time, calls were over a dollar a minute in the daytime in Canada on a landline. The first mobile plans on cellular had a half hour of airtime. A month. We have come a long way, and we will go a long ways further. We don’t need to be doing it by letting people “compete’ who don’t have to pay the costs of competing. I am not a “shill”, I am a person who has been around long enough to see the changes that we’ve had over the past decades and how far it has come. Getting someone to build a massive network and then allowing someone else to resell on it for a pittance is absurd. Our rates are not that out of line with other countries – particularly not the United States, which has more surface area and ten times our population. It is true that the UK has lower rates. They also have massive areas that ONLY have 2G with “no plans currently to upgrade those areas”. Having a “wi fi first” MVNO where the wi fi generally won’t work is just a lame excuse to let someone have something that actually will be on the mobile networks 90% of the time. If you want a “wi fi” MVNO, take your sim card out, load up facebook messenger or something on your phone, and talk away. No extra regulation needed. Have fun.

    • Victor Creed

      “I am not a shill”

      LMAO

    • It’s Me

      We’re more expensive than pretty much every country in the world, outside of maybe the US if we cherry pick numbers.

      As for how much more we get now, that’s called progress. Welcome to the Brahe new world. But unlike every other technology field, were things get better and cheaper, in Canada wireless bucks that trend.

      It’s pathetic that you don’t want “more” regulation and that you act like the big 3 did us a favour by taking our largesse to blame of their empires. Our regulation build their businesses. To whine about regulation that doesn’t coddle them and spoon feed them is more than a little delusional.

      If you aren’t a paid shill then you should be. You spew the same worn out misdirecting talking points their PR machine does. Sad that some people swallow that load.

    • Bill___A

      Calling everyone who disagrees with you a “shill” is pointless and insulting. Leveling the field is fine, but letting others in cheaper is not. Look at the financials of building a network and amortizing the costs. What I am saying is with the increased usage of mobile services and the lower costs associated with building the networks, the “big three” should see some economies of scale and be able to lower some prices. Whether they will or not is another issue, but making them sell their capacity to others like MVNO’s who then work on a lower cost basis is not fair either. Why not nationalize all of the data networks into one holding company and make all of the carriers MVNO’s? That makes the most technical and financial sense, doesn’t it? But we don’t have that because people have differing opinions. When they started out, they had one national carrier and then two and then three, did prices go down? NO. Why would prices go down for a fourth or a fifth one then, unless they didn’t have to pay their fair share of the infrastructure costs? I’m not a shill, but I can work numbers. FYI, our wireless works a lot better than the ones in the USA. Or UK. By a big margin. I know that from experience.

    • It’s Me

      Nah, I just call the shills shills.

      Prices will go down if other entrants are allowed entry without having to build out a new network. That’s obvious. You say it like it’s a bad thing.

      We don’t have to nationalize the networks. They were build with our assistance, our resources, our spectrum and with our generosity and protection. Now is as good a time as any to let them start to repay our goodwill.

      You’ll say that’s welfare. Maybe it is. But so was what the incumbents received for decades (and much longer if we include their previous gifted monopolies they all started from). So you are against some welfare but ok with others. Seems sort of shill like to be so inconsistent. Almost like you’re being paid to spread FUD.

      Next you’ll claim that if new entrants are allowed special treatments, ignoring the years of special treatment for the incumbents, that they won’t invest in networks due to lower incentives. Which is just more dishonest FUD. Didn’t happen with cable ISPs. On the contract, investments are actually found to increase.

      I’ll patiently await more FUD. Make sure you copy/paste from the shill-sheet properly.

  • Zaptor99

    This whole system is messed up. Government or a neutral entity should own the spectrum and they lease it fairly to anyone who wants it. Wishful thinking of course.

  • TomsDisqusted

    Wow, I’m impressed. This could do more for competition and prices in Canada then anything else that has been done it even considered in recent years.

    Great to see a government minister looking out for Canadian consumers!

  • Ipse

    I have the utmost faith in our own Ajit Pai to squash this initiative while still in the “comments” phase.
    After all, why was he appointed if not to serve his masters?
    Bain had a good I reaction (albeit to a fraudulent case) and CRTC has to follow his guidance…that doesn’t mean they have to bring MVNOs to life.
    The study will conclude that the current status is perfectly fine.

    Bets anyone?

    • It’s Me

      you are likely spot on.