TR Forums

blitzy wrote:

The barrier to competition is that the big players already have infrastructure and its not really feasible for a startup to just come along and throw up their own network. So they would have to piggyback on somebody elses infrastructure.

And the only way that happens is if gov't forces the carriers with infrastructure to lease time on their towers to independent providers at a gov't-mandated price low enough for those independents to undercut the tower owners' price structure. See POTS and CLECs.

I'd go further but this thread is already close enough to, if not over, the R&P line.

Captain Ned wrote:

blitzy wrote:

The barrier to competition is that the big players already have infrastructure and its not really feasible for a startup to just come along and throw up their own network. So they would have to piggyback on somebody elses infrastructure.

And the only way that happens is if gov't forces the carriers with infrastructure to lease time on their towers to independent providers at a gov't-mandated price low enough for those independents to undercut the tower owners' price structure. See POTS and CLECs.

I'd go further but this thread is already close enough to, if not over, the R&P line.

When the original question is why he's getting "raped" because he's not saving a couple of bucks a month that he thinks he should be saving, it didn't have all that far to go in the first place...

Captain Ned wrote:

blitzy wrote:

The barrier to competition is that the big players already have infrastructure and its not really feasible for a startup to just come along and throw up their own network. So they would have to piggyback on somebody elses infrastructure.

And the only way that happens is if gov't forces the carriers with infrastructure to lease time on their towers to independent providers at a gov't-mandated price low enough for those independents to undercut the tower owners' price structure. See POTS and CLECs.

I'd go further but this thread is already close enough to, if not over, the R&P line.

that might be true, but I didn't put it there.

Captain Ned wrote:

blitzy wrote:

The barrier to competition is that the big players already have infrastructure and its not really feasible for a startup to just come along and throw up their own network. So they would have to piggyback on somebody elses infrastructure.

And the only way that happens is if gov't forces the carriers with infrastructure to lease time on their towers to independent providers at a gov't-mandated price low enough for those independents to undercut the tower owners' price structure. See POTS and CLECs.

I'd go further but this thread is already close enough to, if not over, the R&P line.

I want to hear more of this info.

sweatshopking wrote:

Here's something i've been mulling over. If i have my own phone, why do i pay the same rates as somebody who's getting a phone subsidized? that makes no sense to me. how can the carrier justify charging me the same amount, when they don't have to put up the initial cost.

Take for example, in canada, a LG optimus 7, is a 500$ phone, with no contract. With telus, the lowest smartphone plan you can get is 50$ a month , that's 300 local minutes, and 500mb, btw FOR 50$?!?!?! That's 10 months worth of fees, and yet, I have to pay the same amount as somebody who gets the phone up front, at no charge?!

How is this legal? who lets them make these plans? there should be laws!

With t-mobile I get a pretty decent discount for owning my own phone, on paper its over $20 a month though its not completely clearcut since I can't use all of the same discounts, works out to about $17-18. Compared to the Ma Bells plans its a lot less.

The coverage locally is good, and solid 5 bar 3.5G at home and work. I disabled roaming on the phone, never noticed a problem.

I have real working VPN and tethering with an unlimited data plan that throttles at its limit instead of charging. I picked the lowest mainsteam voice/text plan that I could bundle the data with since I barely use either, gmail/gchat is far more useful and voip quality is excellent over my home fiber.

I have no contract, yet I'm still postpaid, not prepaid. If we had actual competition and compatibility I could change providers whenever I want if a better deal came along.

The discount pays for my ~$500 phone in a little over 2 years, a lot quicker if I was on the terrible Ma Bell "full feature" plans.

Its ok though, AT&T will gut them and Sprint will die or get eaten up by Verizon, so once again the only real choices nationwide will be:

Ma Bell, Ma Bell, and pretend resellers of Ma Bell.

What a ****ing joke.

Captain Ned wrote:

And the only way that happens is if gov't forces the carriers with infrastructure to lease time on their towers to independent providers at a gov't-mandated price low enough for those independents to undercut the tower owners' price structure. See POTS and CLECs.

Wait a second, I thought the major carriers were already forced to share their towers with the competition. (something about tower saturation in areas, dont need three or four just one) Are you talking about the equipment "on the tower" or the tower itself?

tanker27 wrote:

Wait a second, I thought the major carriers were already forced to share their towers with the competition. (something about tower saturation in areas, dont need three or four just one) Are you talking about the equipment "on the tower" or the tower itself?

I'm drawing the analogy to CLECs which, as originally implemented, required the Baby Bells to allow other carriers to use the Baby Bells' "last-mile" infrastructure at a gov't mandated price, which undercut the price structures of the Baby Bells. I extend that analogy to a future gov't requirement placed upon Verizon/AT&T/whoever to allow competitive cell phone companies to use their "last-mile" infrastructure (i.e. tower antenna to phone) at a gov't-mandated "cost equivalence" that would allow the competitive carriers to offer prices far lower than those offered by those who own the infrastructure.

This seems to be what SSK is stumping for; gov't intervention to allow him to use Canadian cell phone systems at a price below what they're willing to offer.

Sharing of physical towers for antenna space is common and uncontroversial.

Captain Ned wrote:

tanker27 wrote:

Wait a second, I thought the major carriers were already forced to share their towers with the competition. (something about tower saturation in areas, dont need three or four just one) Are you talking about the equipment "on the tower" or the tower itself?

I'm drawing the analogy to CLECs which, as originally implemented, required the Baby Bells to allow other carriers to use the Baby Bells' "last-mile" infrastructure at a gov't mandated price, which undercut the price structures of the Baby Bells. I extend that analogy to a future gov't requirement placed upon Verizon/AT&T/whoever to allow competitive cell phone companies to use their "last-mile" infrastructure (i.e. tower antenna to phone) at a gov't-mandated "cost equivalence" that would allow the competitive carriers to offer prices far lower than those offered by those who own the infrastructure.

Isn't that what MVNO is today? A lot of the MVNOs only do prepaid with no smartphone support though.

Flying Fox wrote:

Isn't that what MVNO is today? A lot of the MVNOs only do prepaid with no smartphone support though.

But I don't think that cellco pricing to MVNOs is set by gov't regulators. That's what happened with CLECs and what SSK appears to advocate for the cell phone world.

Captain Ned wrote:

I'm drawing the analogy to CLECs which, as originally implemented, required the Baby Bells to allow other carriers to use the Baby Bells' "last-mile" infrastructure at a gov't mandated price, which undercut the price structures of the Baby Bells. I extend that analogy to a future gov't requirement placed upon Verizon/AT&T/whoever to allow competitive cell phone companies to use their "last-mile" infrastructure (i.e. tower antenna to phone) at a gov't-mandated "cost equivalence" that would allow the competitive carriers to offer prices far lower than those offered by those who own the infrastructure.

This seems to be what SSK is stumping for; gov't intervention to allow him to use Canadian cell phone systems at a price below what they're willing to offer.

Sharing of physical towers for antenna space is common and uncontroversial.

Ahh ok!

this is, without a doubt, the longest thread i've started, that has yet to be locked!!

Well done sirs, well done!!

Now i need to find something else to get raped about, and we'll keep the hits coming!

Glorious wrote:

Flying Fox, who lives in Canada as well, doesn't seem to agree with your characterization.

We were never really in contradiction with one another. Flying Fox was pointing out that Telus is considered one of the "big 3". While Telus' market share is only slightly behind Bell for Canada overall, I was speaking about Ontario. Yes, since Telus' aquisition of Clearnet 10 years ago, they have had a strong foothold in Ontario, but are behind the other two in market share in Eastern Canada. This is an assumption based on the fact that if Telus was not behind Rogers and Bell in Ontario, with it's market share in the West, it would have to be number 2 or number 1 overall, not number 3. (I can't find stats on market share for Ontario, only Canada overall)

But this is largely a red herring. The clout of Rogers and Bell in the Canadian wireless market doesn't only come from their WIRELESS market share. These companies are media giants. They are not only the largest wireless cariers, they are of the largest cable television and ISP and telecommunications (sure, Bell may have a smaller market share in cable TV and Rogers may have a smaller share in home phone services, but overall, this stands). They (especially Bell) have used this clout to influence the CRTC (independent body for the regulation of telecommunications and broadcasting policy) to restrict competition by baring international competitors and promoting/sustaining other antitrust-esque policies. (The only reason we have internationally owned wireless companies and networks finally in Canada is because, in 2009, the Feds took it upon themselves to overule the CRTC - a rare precident - to allow international competition)... This is to say that the anti-competative climate - as it exists - for wireless plans in Canada is very much attributable to the collusions of companies like Rogers and Bell, regardless of how much market share Telus has in Ontario.

Glorious wrote:

First off, it was my understanding that Canada didn't want to open itself up to foreign phone companies. So you have a difference there, immediately.

They didn't. Largely due to the influence of companies such as Bell and Rogers, the CRTC tried to keep foreign owned wireless out of Canada. The Feds had to step in and overule this in 2009.

Glorious wrote:

Second off, the difference isn't meaningful. Look, here, from a Canadian source.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/map-cellphonecosts/

Well, we really don't know what the CBC is referring to as "mid-range cell-phone plan". There have been other reports indicating that, when you factor in exactly how much Canadians pay per minute of air-time and kb of data, etc, Canadians pay more. Here is a more detailed summary report:

http://mobilesyrup.com/2010/10/18/repor ... -wireless/

Glorious wrote:

Compare Germany with Canada. They have "more" incentive to be competitive, but yet the costs are VERY similiar.

No. see above link. (this is assuming that Germany is simimlar to other European countries with similar wireless carrier climates - look at the UK)

Glorious wrote:

What I'm trying to tell that you can't just assume that the grass is greener on the other side. I have EVIDENCE that it is not.

I agree 100%. But I am not just assuming. I also have evidence (with more specific measures of actual charges). Added to this are the other similar reports over recent years and the fact that, when I have compared cell phone plans with friends in the USA, the Canadians always seem to be paying more for the identical service (if it is even available - see my previous posts on how we largely don't have unlimitted data plans or nation-wide voice calling included in our plans)

Glorious wrote:

I have sources, you have assertions.

LOL. Nice one.

cynan wrote:

But this is largely a red herring. The clout of Rogers and Bell in the Canadian wireless market doesn't only come from their WIRELESS market share. These companies are media giants. They are not only the largest wireless cariers, they are of the largest cable television and ISP and telecommunications (sure, Bell may have a smaller market share in cable TV and Rogers may have a smaller share in home phone services, but overall, this stands). They (especially Bell) have used this clout to influence the CRTC (independent body for the regulation of telecommunications and broadcasting policy) to restrict competition by baring international competitors and promoting/sustaining other antitrust-esque policies. (The only reason we have internationally owned wireless companies and networks finally in Canada is because, in 2009, the Feds took it upon themselves to overule the CRTC - a rare precident - to allow international competition)... This is to say that the anti-competative climate - as it exists - for wireless plans in Canada is very much attributable to the collusions of companies like Rogers and Bell, regardless of how much market share Telus has in Ontario.

You are openly saying that regulation is why there is less competition in Canada.

I mean, you DO realize that, don't you?

If not for the CRTC, foreign companies would have had the ability to compete and you'd likely have more options.

Am I wrong?

cynan wrote:

They didn't. Largely due to the influence of companies such as Bell and Rogers, the CRTC tried to keep foreign owned wireless out of Canada. The Feds had to step in and overule this in 2009

I repeat, "regulation" is nothing more than legal collusion.

You even illustrate a factual scenario in which this is the case!

cynan wrote:

Well, we really don't know what the CBC is referring to as "mid-range cell-phone plan". There have been other reports indicating that, when you factor in exactly how much Canadians pay per minute of air-time and kb of data, etc, Canadians pay more. Here is a more detailed summary report:

That "more detailed summary report" is exactly the same thing I already discussed. SSK's "cite" and your "cite" are both just articles that report on the same study.

cynan wrote:

I also have evidence (with more specific measures of actual charges).

You have the EXACT SAME "EVIDENCE" that SSK did. The fact that you have a different website parroting the SAME STUDY (complete with the exact same graphs and tables!) doesn't make your "evidence" new.

All it shows is that this is a lazy and uninformed effort to refute what I said without actually bothering to fully read it.

and you, my old bitter friend, have still never answered why i should pay for the cost of a phone, and the insurance on the investment.

x + y + z

I'll assume that since you have repeatedly glazed over it, you're unable to answer.

sweatshopking wrote:

and you, my old bitter friend, have still never answered why i should pay for the cost of a phone, and the insurance on the investment.

Because the CRTC allows it and won't force the carriers to change or to lease tower airtime at prices low enough to cut your bill as you believe it should be.

There is no should here. The should is your red herring. Carriers are doing what the CRTC allows and there's no market reason for them to change.

Captain Ned wrote:

sweatshopking wrote:

and you, my old bitter friend, have still never answered why i should pay for the cost of a phone, and the insurance on the investment.

Because the CRTC allows it and won't force the carriers to change or to lease tower airtime at prices low enough to cut your bill as you believe it should be.

There is no should here. The should is your red herring. Carriers are doing what the CRTC allows and there's no market reason for them to change.

I'm not sure that I agree. I would say that there are market reasons for them to change, just that they're not strong enough yet. As one guy here mentioned, he DOES save money from T-mobile by not having a subsidized phone, and the discount carriers are growing at a faster rate then the big ones. koodo, virgin, etc. are growing reasonably well.

Glorious wrote:

You are openly saying that regulation is why there is less competition in Canada.

If not for the CRTC, foreign companies would have had the ability to compete and you'd likely have more options.

I was saying (or rather insinuating) that the regulatory body who governs these things in Canada (CRTC) is largely a sham when it actually comes down to the regulation of "free" market practices: The regulation that exists has been skewed in favor of companies like Bell and Rogers. The CRTC is heavily influenced by these large corporations that have interests in maintaining the status quo. The CRTC is developing a reputation for siding with these companies more readily than with consumers on these issues. This is exactly why the Federal government overruled the CRTC to allow foreign-owned competition. Recently the CRTC sided with Bell on policy regarding usage based billing for internet services. This decision was deemed anti-consumer and, once again, the Feds stepped in. Some of the reason why this may be the case is that CRTC is allegedly comprised, at least in part, of ex-telecom employees. These people have stake in the profitability of these companies. It does not take much of a stretch to see how there is a conflict of interest here...

In summary, if anything, it is the very lack of nonpartisan regulation that is part of the problem.

Glorious wrote:

cynan wrote:

Well, we really don't know what the CBC is referring to as "mid-range cell-phone plan". There have been other reports indicating that, when you factor in exactly how much Canadians pay per minute of air-time and kb of data, etc, Canadians pay more. Here is a more detailed summary report:

That "more detailed summary report" is exactly the same thing I already discussed. SSK's "cite" and your "cite" are both just articles that report on the same study.

cynan wrote:

I also have evidence (with more specific measures of actual charges).

You have the EXACT SAME "EVIDENCE" that SSK did. The fact that you have a different website parroting the SAME STUDY (complete with the exact same graphs and tables!) doesn't make your "evidence" new.

All it shows is that this is a lazy and uninformed effort to refute what I said without actually bothering to fully read it.

Lazy and uninformed? Now you are just blatantly name-calling. The CBC data you posted does not tell us anything. As I asked in my previous post, what exactly is a "mid-range cell-phone plan"? Are they even including data plans? If we don't know what is actually being compared, than the stats are useless. Statistics 101.

I did not realize that SSK posted a similar link. But how does this have any bearing on the facts? This report (which I believe uses the same source data as the CBC report you linked) clearly shows that, at least for wireless data plans, Canadians get the shaft compared to anywhere else in the world. And lets face it, data is becoming the most valuable wireless commodity. Apparently, Americans pay more for text messaging. As for as voice plans are concerned, it appears that Americans pay slightly more than Canadians, but as I posted previously, I'm not sure the average voice plans are exactly comparable (Ie, most American wireless plans include nation-wide calling while most Canadian plans do not).

The fact remains that, overall, with the data prices factored in, Canadians pay more.

"Now you are just blatantly name-calling."

this IS glorious you're talking to, so don't be surprised.

FYI, here is the source of the international comparison of cell-phone plan charges referred to previously in this thread.

http://oti.newamerica.net/publications/ ... and_prices

It seems as if they've merely cherry-picked a large carrier from each country, which may not mean they are that representative of average charges for all countries compared.

Like SSK posted earlier (and contrary to what I said above), they claim that Canada pays almost twice as much for voice air-time.

However, their listing of an unlimited data plan for Rogers, at $72.90 is quite strange. As far as I am aware, Rogers has never had an unlimited data plan (though they did advertise an unlimited plan with the introduction of the Iphone - which turned out not to be unlimited). Right now, the largest monthly data plan you can get at Rogers is 5GB, which costs $60, with overage fees charged for going over this amount. So while they may be correctly illustrating how much higher data charges are in Canada, the figures they use to do so seem questionable.

sweatshopking wrote:

Captain Ned wrote:

Because the CRTC allows it and won't force the carriers to change or to lease tower airtime at prices low enough to cut your bill as you believe it should be.

There is no should here. The should is your red herring. Carriers are doing what the CRTC allows and there's no market reason for them to change.

I'm not sure that I agree. I would say that there are market reasons for them to change, just that they're not strong enough yet. As one guy here mentioned, he DOES save money from T-mobile by not having a subsidized phone

Now you have illustrated your own confusion here quite well. The Captain was saying that since the CRTC allows it, the telcos are going to whatever they can to charge the maximum they can without too many people leaving them. There is no market reason for the telcos to change. "A guy" being able to save money is on the consumer side. You are sort of equating what is good for the consumer is good for the telcos. Definitely not the case here. Under a legal oligopoly/monopoly they are never the same. The equality only exists when we have close to perfect competition. Simple microeconomics.

sweatshopking wrote:

and the discount carriers are growing at a faster rate then the big ones. koodo, virgin, etc. are growing reasonably well.

Don't be confused by all the different "discount carriers names" that you hear in the media. Koodo = Telus, Fido = Rogers, Chat-r = Rogers, Solo = Bell. Virgin was a MVNO but was acquired by Bell, so now even Virgin = Bell. These carriers are a bit cheaper, but not that cheap. Lack of price point choices and certain limitations still apply. Those names are being established to create the illusion of competition when in fact, there is very little. When financial reports are published, the subscriber counts include all of these subsidiaries. So they are just playing a numbers game shifting people who want to move from the "high-end tier" to another. Granted those moves are a partial response to market conditions (appealing to youth with funky names, slightly lower price points focusing more on urban areas, etc.), the fact that these "smaller carriers" are controlled by the big 3 does not change the picture too much. This is exactly what the telcos wanted - to control the market. Before Wind and Mobilecity, the independents are mostly operating as MVNO's and no matter how fast they grow they are still in the minority. Since I was in Toronto, Ontario, I am not too familiar with how regional operators like SaskTel work so I can't comment on that.

@cynan: No need to be nice. CRTC is full of ex-telco execs, they pretty much are the telcos.

Flying Fox wrote:

sweatshopking wrote:

Captain Ned wrote:

Because the CRTC allows it and won't force the carriers to change or to lease tower airtime at prices low enough to cut your bill as you believe it should be.

There is no should here. The should is your red herring. Carriers are doing what the CRTC allows and there's no market reason for them to change.

I'm not sure that I agree. I would say that there are market reasons for them to change, just that they're not strong enough yet. As one guy here mentioned, he DOES save money from T-mobile by not having a subsidized phone

Now you have illustrated your own confusion here quite well. The Captain was saying that since the CRTC allows it, the telcos are going to whatever they can to charge the maximum they can without too many people leaving them. There is no market reason for the telcos to change. "A guy" being able to save money is on the consumer side. You are sort of equating what is good for the consumer is good for the telcos. Definitely not the case here. Under a legal oligopoly/monopoly they are never the same. The equality only exists when we have close to perfect competition. Simple microeconomics.

sweatshopking wrote:

and the discount carriers are growing at a faster rate then the big ones. koodo, virgin, etc. are growing reasonably well.

Don't be confused by all the different "discount carriers names" that you hear in the media. Koodo = Telus, Fido = Rogers, Chat-r = Rogers, Solo = Bell. Virgin was a MVNO but was acquired by Bell, so now even Virgin = Bell. These carriers are a bit cheaper, but not that cheap. Lack of price point choices and certain limitations still apply. Those names are being established to create the illusion of competition when in fact, there is very little. When financial reports are published, the subscriber counts include all of these subsidiaries. So they are just playing a numbers game shifting people who want to move from the "high-end tier" to another. Granted those moves are a partial response to market conditions (appealing to youth with funky names, slightly lower price points focusing more on urban areas, etc.), the fact that these "smaller carriers" are controlled by the big 3 does not change the picture too much. This is exactly what the telcos wanted - to control the market. Before Wind and Mobilecity, the independents are mostly operating as MVNO's and no matter how fast they grow they are still in the minority. Since I was in Toronto, Ontario, I am not too familiar with how regional operators like SaskTel work so I can't comment on that.

@cynan: No need to be nice. CRTC is full of ex-telco execs, they pretty much are the telcos.

What I was saying in response to the captain was that yes, I agree that gov is required to bring them down, if the market is unable to provide a significant incentive, but that I think the incentive is coming, as people are not happy with the current high prices, and are starting to actively search for alternatives. I don't think there's any confusion in that regard, but perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't really have any 'confusion', i just don't agree with the current system, i suppose.

In regards to your second point, if you had read the whole thread, you'd have seen that i already made the point of the "value" carriers being owned by the big three. In face mentioning koodo, fido, and virgin, by name. That aside, I agree with your point.

Sasktel is great. nuff said.they're really the only significant regional player left.

Captain Ned wrote:

sweatshopking wrote:

and you, my old bitter friend, have still never answered why i should pay for the cost of a phone, and the insurance on the investment.

Because the CRTC allows it and won't force the carriers to change or to lease tower airtime at prices low enough to cut your bill as you believe it should be.

There is no should here. The should is your red herring. Carriers are doing what the CRTC allows and there's no market reason for them to change.

In other words, the media corporations write the regulations. Just like in the US.

In other parts of the world, where you don't pay for subsidized phones, monthly plans are a little bit cheaper. They also don't charge you for incoming calls like in the US, only outgoing, (there isn't a nights and weekends thing though either). I was paying like $35-40 a month for ~1500 minutes, some data, and a ton of text messages.

Kinda like how north america is getting left way behind in broadband (higher prices for lesser service) compared to far east asia, far east asia has north america beat by far when it comes to wireless service. Pay only for X because there is no Y or Z.

Adamantine wrote:

Captain Ned wrote:

sweatshopking wrote:

and you, my old bitter friend, have still never answered why i should pay for the cost of a phone, and the insurance on the investment.

Because the CRTC allows it and won't force the carriers to change or to lease tower airtime at prices low enough to cut your bill as you believe it should be.

There is no should here. The should is your red herring. Carriers are doing what the CRTC allows and there's no market reason for them to change.

In other words, the media corporations write the regulations. Just like in the US.

In other parts of the world, where you don't pay for subsidized phones, monthly plans are a little bit cheaper. They also don't charge you for incoming calls like in the US, only outgoing, (there isn't a nights and weekends thing though either). I was paying like $35-40 a month for ~1500 minutes, some data, and a ton of text messages.

Kinda like how north america is getting left way behind in broadband (higher prices for lesser service) compared to far east asia, far east asia has north america beat by far when it comes to wireless service. Pay only for X because there is no Y or Z.

Thank you for somebody finally acknowledging my equation!

Adamantine wrote:

Kinda like how north america is getting left way behind in broadband (higher prices for lesser service) compared to far east asia, far east asia has north america beat by far when it comes to wireless service. Pay only for X because there is no Y or Z.

You do realize that there is a tremendous density difference at work here?

Airmantharp wrote:

Adamantine wrote:

Kinda like how north america is getting left way behind in broadband (higher prices for lesser service) compared to far east asia, far east asia has north america beat by far when it comes to wireless service. Pay only for X because there is no Y or Z.

You do realize that there is a tremendous density difference at work here?

and? they use that argument in canada, and it's bs. i've already stated why. 90% of the canadian population is within 100 miles of the us border. our ACTUAL population density is reasonable, and with the exception of alberta, the entire country has no coverage outside of those high density areas. it's simply not applicable.

sweatshopking wrote:

Airmantharp wrote:

You do realize that there is a tremendous density difference at work here?

and? they use that argument in canada, and it's bs. i've already stated why. 90% of the canadian population is within 100 miles of the us border. our ACTUAL population density is reasonable, and with the exception of alberta, the entire country has no coverage outside of those high density areas. it's simply not applicable.

Just because you claim the argument is BS doesn't make it so; the fact that 90% of your population lives near the US border means squat.

Let's use France for comparison. France has roughly 2x the population of Canada; and if you figure the total land area of just the 100 mile strip along the US-Canada border, it is more than 2x the area of France. So even your alleged "high density" area has only about 1/5th the population density. A factor of 5 is huge for something like this!

There's a fundamental issue of economics here: In lower density areas, it simply is not profitable to build the infrastructure.

cynan wrote:

I was saying (or rather insinuating) that the regulatory body who governs these things in Canada (CRTC) is largely a sham when it actually comes down to the regulation of "free" market practices: The regulation that exists has been skewed in favor of companies like Bell and Rogers. The CRTC is heavily influenced by these large corporations that have interests in maintaining the status quo. The CRTC is developing a reputation for siding with these companies more readily than with consumers on these issues. This is exactly why the Federal government overruled the CRTC to allow foreign-owned competition. Recently the CRTC sided with Bell on policy regarding usage based billing for internet services. This decision was deemed anti-consumer and, once again, the Feds stepped in. Some of the reason why this may be the case is that CRTC is allegedly comprised, at least in part, of ex-telecom employees. These people have stake in the profitability of these companies. It does not take much of a stretch to see how there is a conflict of interest here....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory

This stuff is not new, and I've been throwing it at you for several posts now. I don't know what else I can do.

cynan wrote:

In summary, if anything, it is the very lack of nonpartisan regulation that is part of the problem.

If you can figure out a way to actually create nonpartisan regulation you'll probably get two nobel prizes so you can trump George Stigler.

Wishing for "nonpartisan" regulatory agencies (uncapturable regulation) without even sketching the barest framework for how you'd actually accomplish that is abject silliness. You're never going to get it, and you have absolutely no reason to expect it. You might as well be saying that your telecommunications "problems" are due to a lack of an ansible.

cynan wrote:

It seems as if they've merely cherry-picked a large carrier from each country, which may not mean they are that representative of average charges for all countries compared.

Like SSK posted earlier (and contrary to what I said above), they claim that Canada pays almost twice as much for voice air-time.

I called you lazy and uninformed because I brought all this up when SSK originally cited this study (by way of a different news article than you).

I'm glad that you now realize some of the problems I was trying to point to originally, but if you'd followed this originally...

SSK wrote:

What I was saying in response to the captain was that yes, I agree that gov is required to bring them down, if the market is unable to provide a significant incentive, but that I think the incentive is coming, as people are not happy with the current high prices, and are starting to actively search for alternatives.

I don't think you know what the word incentive means.

Glorious wrote:

I don't think you know what the word incentive means.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-b7RmmMJeo

hey, all you nerds. I WON. carriers in Canada now give a discount if you bring your own phone. 10%.
prices are almost half for all companies for cell coverage in sask, with SaskTel (public utility, and massive low population density, and Manitoba with their local company MTS. BECAUSE OF INCREASED COMPETITION. TAKE THAT GUYS, I WAS RIGHT, AND YEARS AHEAD OF THE CURVE.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/wireless-carri ... 46351.html
EDIT: MAN. I WAS A DICK. SORRY BROS.

Great, now how about you rename your thread. Rape jokes aren't cool.