They would likely be forced to build more infrastructure to support the increased demand. Boo hoo spending on infrastructure instead of c-level pockets.
Keep repeating that Canada has one of the highest rates for communications for consumers in the world
Australia is comparable to us … relatively small population with a large land mass … and they have better and cheaper communications than us. If you want to argue that it’s the landscape and environment … the nordic countries are in the Arctic circle and they provide better and cheaper data services for their customers.
The biggest issue we have here is monopolies and when you give these companies full control … they will never want to change the status quo and they will never do anything to help people or give better rates … they will always balance how much to take from people by how much those people are willing to be fleeced … so far we have been very compliant, which is why everything persists.
It’s one thing to say you’ve been robbed … it’s another thing to just sit there and continue to be robbed.
You could argue they’re monopolies given there’s only one cable provider and one phone provider to an area. Maybe you could argue that’s a duopoly as both provide comparable services overall.
However, for many Canadian’s it’s actually a monopoly. Many areas do not have cable services at all. In a lot of areas, the companies have chosen not to compete so effectively residents only have one choice for high speed internet. Even in highly built up areas, like Toronto, many new high-rises are being built with only one connection, so again, residents don’t have a choice.
The choosing not to compete is the outcome of the oligopoly. That’s what it is, and it’s outcome.
Bell knows that if they leave that area to Roger’s, Roger’s will leave this other area to Bell, because it’ll cost both of them too much money to move into the other spot and lower their prices, when they both can reap the rewards of not competing in that spot. They don’t have to worry about anyone else because it’s mainly just the 3 of them, Telus, being the other.
Moving into a building with only 1 choice sucks and should probably not be allowed if it’s a contracted thing.
Moving into a building with only 1 choice sucks and should probably not be allowed if it’s a contracted thing.
It’s what we get for still treating the Internet like a commodity in 2023. At this point, it’s pretty laughable to try and make the argument that it’s not a utility.
Reminds me of when I went to college, and the transport anti-monopolization laws a few years ago, which made my college that had multiple companies going there… have a literal monopoly. Made a no-tranfer ride into a one or sometimes two transfer ride ontop.
Nah, Monopoly. Telus owns all of the lines the government money built out west, Bell owns it all out east. They trade for access without charging each other what they charge everyone else.
It’s worth noting that Bibic has a history of threatening to pull investments whenever the government does something he doesn’t like. Earlier this year, Bibic suggested there would be “unintended consequences” if the government and CRTC pushed more regulations on the big telecom companies, and Bell joined other telcos in threatening investments over a wholesale ruling in 2019.
Add comment