Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Wireless license sale sets stage for cheaper services

SIMON AVERY

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 7:03 PM EST 22/07/08

Wireless spectrum auction concludes with $4.25-billion of bids; two new entrants may take run at forming new national company ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. bee foot from Canada writes: I couldn't wait.
  2. Michael Kalus from Canada writes: Good,

    now get the GSM networks up and make it at a decent price and Fido has seen the last of me, I am really not interested in financing Ted Rogers debt any longer.
  3. C C from Canada writes: CRTC and Industry Canada really need to prevent these new telcos from selling their spectrum to the Big Three. The CBC suggested that Shaw won't actually be developing wireless services; it's simply holding onto its share of the spectrum for now and selling it to the highest bidder in a few years time.
  4. all good from qubekistan, Canada writes: bring on saudi telecom .
  5. Michael Kalus from Canada writes: C C from Canada writes: CRTC and Industry Canada really need to prevent these new telcos from selling their spectrum to the Big Three. The CBC suggested that Shaw won't actually be developing wireless services; it's simply holding onto its share of the spectrum for now and selling it to the highest bidder in a few years time.

    -----------------

    Possible but I don't think it's likely. With the idea of 'Triple Play' Shaw needs the wireless too in order to be able to compete with Rogers, Telus and Bell.

    But then again, Business moves in mysterious ways and Shaw seems to do fine financially right now.
  6. Raj K from Edmonton, Canada writes: I agree with C C, No more spectrum to the big three. They are solely responsible for the low cellphone usage and outdated technology in Canada. We need more active CRTC in building healthy competition.
  7. Larry Carter from Vancouver, writes: CRTC now has a benchmark for the value of spectrum. To even the playing field, it is time that Bell, Telus and Rogers paid for the spectrum they were originally granted for free. The argument can be made that they needed free spectrum to afford to develop their networks however, given the nearly 20 years since they were granted this opportunity, they have made back their investments several times.

    Having them pay now would put them into the same competitive boats as the newcomers. Could make things more interesting and, who knows, maybe we'd have a competitive marketplace with the consumers finally benefiting again.
  8. Koolest Cat from Canada writes: The new entrants will need time to build their networks

    -------------------------------

    Definitely an understatement.

    Building out a wireless network is major undertaking and will take a bunch of years to break even and start making money and by that time the wireless bubble will have burst.

    Since roaming will have to be done through Rogers that will tax the business plan drastically.
  9. Paul, Bytown, from Canada writes: Don't expect any changes. Shaw and Videotron are just another Rogers. Look at their cable practices and you'll see that, if they do develop wireless, it will be just more of the same old same old.
  10. RD Lone from Vancouver, Canada writes: Yak uses CDMA, so it means that Rogers will still have the GSM monopoly. Great...
  11. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    The Government missed a golden opportunity here to REALLY help Canadians in this regard. This was the perfect time to get rid of our ridiculous and outdated foreign ownership restrictions in Canada and truly open up the Canadian market to REAL competition.

    Still, even without fixing this major gaff that's costing Canadians money and jobs it does look like we'll have at least one new competition in all regions. Globealive is certainly the most interesting company out of the bunch, they look like they have full plans on building an almost-national (missing Quebec) network. This should give almost all Canadians at least one new, really viable competitor. Most should also get at least one regional competitor as well. This will up the competition from 3 to at least 4 or 5, definitely a big boost.

    Now it's just a question of how long things will take. I'm guessing it'll be 2 years before they're really up and running, but a few key markets might see some new services popping up in a year or so.
  12. The Economic Hitman jr. from Vancouver, Canada writes: Seems like this spectrum auction doesn't do a whole lot to promote long-term competition at all. Granted, the big 3 have some company now, but it's no less an oligopoly. In fact, Quebec seems like a completely closed market as a result of this exercise.
  13. Cowtown boy from Canada writes: 'This will up the competition from 3 to at least 4 or 5, definitely a big boost.'

    We used to have 5 - Bell, Rogers, Telus, Clearnet, and Fido (Microcell). What makes you think that we can support 4 or 5 companies in this country, Even the U.S has only 4 major players (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, & T-Mobile). Do you think for a moment considering the capital outlay that we can support that many carriers, especially when you consider how fast technology changes. To me, the fact that we have 3 is amazing.
  14. slapdash dapoint from trawna, Canada writes: "Mr. Sawiris rules a wireless empire with more than 90 million clients in ... and North Korea. In a recent interview with The Globe and Mail, he said he was attracted to the Canadian market by a dearth of competition."

    the guy has a wireless company in NORTH KOREA and thinks there is a "dearth of competition" in cananda... jebbus crix, what a market economy we're running

    ----------------------------------

    Cowtown boy from Canada writes: Do you think for a moment considering the capital outlay that we can support that many carriers, especially when you consider how fast technology changes. To me, the fact that we have 3 is amazing.

    ----------------------------------

    i too hope one of the big 3 fold. or start providing better plans/service
  15. DR G from Ottawa, Canada writes: "Don't expect any changes. Shaw and Videotron are just another Rogers. Look at their cable practices and you'll see that, if they do develop wireless, it will be just more of the same old same old."

    Companies respond to competition. The problem has been that there just hasn't been enough in Canada. When you look at the prices Americans pay for mobile phones versus what we play? Outrageous.
  16. Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: I fail to understand how you people figure that adding more players will increase competition. This is Canada you know, the new players will just have more or less the same plans as the big 3. The competition bureau will find that there is no collusion and we consumers will get nothing. Then the new guys will sell their stuff to the competition. And we're back to the big three. With higher prices of course to pay for the new acquisitions.
  17. Rollo T from Belgium writes: Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: I fail to understand how you people figure that adding more players will increase competition.
    ---------------------------------

    Only if the competition is to see who can hose the consumer the most. Since the governement auctions slots in the spectrum to the highest bidders, they are pretty much forced to fleece their customers too.
  18. Malankai CA from Toronto, Canada writes: Come on all. A little history goes a long way. All this accomplished was to bring some money into government coffers and create some 'temporary' jobs for the next few years. Canada cannot support 4 national carriers - we're not big enough. It was only about 12 years ago that we did have FOUR national carriers; Bell, Rogers, Clearnet and Fido and we had 4 in one shape or another for a fairly long time. But even then, there was talk that it wouldn't last (and it didn't) and than Canada can only support 2-3 national carriers and there were debates on who would be the 3. Some history; (1) First there were 2 carriers; Bell and Cantel. Cantel changed their name to AT&T Rogers and then just Rogers. (2) Then 12 years there were 4 carriers via auction; Clearnet and Fido join making it 4 national carriers. (3) Few years later; Telus goes national by buying Clearnet - but we're still 4 national carriers. (4) Virgin enters the market on Bell's network - you can technically say that Canada now has 5 national players but since they didn't buy spectrum, we'll leave it at 4. (5) And then a few years, Rogers buys Fido before Bell does - and we're down to 3 National carriers. Why? Because Fido wasn't surviving as a national carrier. So, for a long time we've had 4 national carriers and it was shown that Canada can't support 4 national players and that was in the day where wireless was experience EXPLOSIVE growth. Therefore - what in the heck makes you think - in a market that is commoditizing, that Canada is going to be able to support 5-6 national players? The math just doesn't work. In a couple of years of these companies launching, there will be consolidation again and we'll be back to 3 players. You can bank on that.
  19. C C from Canada writes: "Yak uses CDMA, so it means that Rogers will still have the GSM monopoly. Great.."

    Actually, the CBC reports that Globallive (Yak's parent company) is debating whether to start with a 3G or 4G network.
  20. Joshua er from Canada writes: The original 2 bill estimate that would come from the sold spectrum should be applied to the debt like planned. The extra should be reinvested in the some way into better wireless networks etc
  21. therock 112 from Canada writes: Is it lack of competition in the wireless industry or is it possible that there are other reasons for the high prices??? is it also possible that there are behind closed door agreements AMONG the 3 wireless telcos to keep compeition as low as possible, so all 3 can collectively make handsome profits?? lets start by asking the important questions: what is rogers profits in the last postings? same with Telus and bell? secondly, how come we are stuck with this stupid CDMA technology.....if we want to use feature rich pda's and phones etc doesnt it make sense to join the rest of the world and stick with GSM technology from coast to coast of this country? obviously its clear that CRTC is not doing what its supposed to be doing.....keeping all aspects of technology and the business in line to be more future compatible and encouraging and if not forcing the wireless players and others to embrace global standard technologies......such as GSM for one thing. imagine if we had 3 GSM players in canada, none of the bull*** about locking phones with this or the other operator, we would have a chance of a somewhat healthy competition as all players would know if consumer is unhappy with one operator he or she will gladly walk to the other operator with the same handset and no additional bull*** of buying a handset (cdma or other) and locking into another ridicuous 3 agreement etc etc
  22. The Objectivist from overpopulated Toronto, Canada writes: Remember the stories of old about how the robber barons for their own gain hammered, almost literally, people into the dirt? Does the high speed internet and wireless oligopoly today feel much different? The free enterprise is capitalism tempered so that the benefits ultimately accrue to the consumer. We have our own robber barons today who are every bit as predatory. I'm as pro free enterprise as they come, but our banks and communication companies shouldn't be allowed to walk the walk of free enterprise when all they are is duded up monopolies. get rid of the status quo serving CRTC and open the doors.
  23. Randy D from Canada writes: You mean real competition ala free countries???
  24. Cowtown boy from Canada writes: "how come we are stuck with this stupid CDMA technology"

    Actually CDMA is the newer technology and we use it because when the conversion from AMPS to digital happened, there were 2 choices, GSM or CDMA and CDMA is a more advanced technology. It's both more secure and uses bandwidth more economically than GSM

    CDMA actually has more users than GSM in North America as both Verizon and Sprint in the U.S. deploy CDMA while AT&T and T-Mobile use GSM.

    About the only place on Earth that never had CDMA was in Europe. Latin America, South America, Asia and other all deployed CDMA as well as GSM.

    It's much like the old BETA versus VHS debate, where BETA was actually the better technology but lost out anyhow.
  25. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: Cowtown boy from Canada writes: "Even the U.S has only 4 major players (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, & T-Mobile)"

    AllTel and U.S. Cellular are also a national player in the U.S. and there are dozens of regional carriers.

    So yes, I do believe Canada can support 4 national carriers and some regional ones. The capital outlay is high but not ridiculously so. Remember that while Canada as a whole is really big, roughly 90% of our country in uninhabited and therefore needs virtually no mobile phone towers.
  26. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes: RD Lone from Vancouver, Canada writes: "Yak uses CDMA, so it means that Rogers will still have the GSM monopoly. Great..."

    Yak doesn't currently have any network, CDMA, GSM or otherwise. They will be building their network from the ground up and in this day and age you would need to have rocks in your head to build anything but a GSM network.
  27. More CO2 Gas from Canada writes: With auction prices like this it would be niave to thing cell phone prices will fall.
  28. Koolest Cat from Canada writes: CDMA actually has more users than GSM in North America as both Verizon and Sprint in the U.S. deploy CDMA while AT&T and T-Mobile use GSM.

    About the only place on Earth that never had CDMA was in Europe. Latin America, South America, Asia and other all deployed CDMA as well as GSM.

    ------------------------------------------

    No matter how you spin it well over 3/4 of the world is on GSM and if you take North America out of that equation the number is in the 85% to 95% range.
  29. therock 112 from Canada writes: well lets get the number straight....

    a country like India is built on GSM from the ground, have you checked the subscriber base in India...oh wait, lets review the country population first....1.1 Billion folks in about 1/4th land size of the USA and if half of them sign up for a wireless phone, thats around 500 million subscribers..

    population of USA, lets be liberal, 300 million, and if 50% of them sign up for a cell phone it would be, 150 million but wait they have gsm and cdma mixture in there....so the gsm sbscribers would be a lot less in reality.

    we havent even talked about China yet, what about countries like Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Java, Sumatra and Europe and africa...

    u get the picture? all of them are GSM......if any new players wants to enter Canada, and if they were half smart, GSM is the way to go !!!
  30. Dr. Strangelove from Edmonton, Canada writes: therock 112 from Canada writes: "... imagine if we had ... none of the bull*** about locking phones with this or the other operator ...".

    Yes, that would be nice. I find it unbelievable that the carriers can get away with locking your phone when you bought it and you own it. If they would unlock it when requested, it wouldn't be an issue. Rogers "customer service" recently refused to unlock an old phone that I bought 6 years ago so my daughter in Texas could use it after her own phone quit. Her own carrier offered to unlock it, but Rogers wouldn't give them the code either. We finally got it unlocked using an internet service, but she shouldn't have had to pay to get that done. As a result, Rogers just lost a 10-year customer (me). If the CRTC was actually doing something useful (I realize I'm dreaming), they should make refusal to unlock a phone illegal once the carrier's subsidy of the phone price (if any) has been recovered.

    Expecting any real competition or customer service in Canada's oligopoly wireless market is dreaming in technicolor as long as the CRTC continues to study its navel while sucking on their taxpayer-funded salaries, perks, and pensions.

    .
  31. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    The good news is that this $ 4.3 BILLION goes directly to the govt. coffers (with basically no expense attached to this windfall) and it will be interesting to note what the overall surplus will be.

    Flaherty predicted a $ 2.3 BILLION budget surplus this fiscal year( April 2008-April 2009)-add to that this new $ 4.3, and if the surplus is NOT at least $ 6.5 BILLION, then we have questions to ask.

    I believe they will re-adjust the 2008-2009 fiscal to be over $10 Billion when, even though GST has been cut, there was an unforeseen windfall due to increased prices on just about all items, and certainly end user energy costs where GST is put on the FINAL price. (gas at the pump)
    .
  32. been there from Toronto, Canada writes: Telecom services is where we need to open up competition -- from around the world if it need be.

    The current arrangement is anti-competitive at the expense of the consumer and the results prove it. It just generates loads of oligopolistic profits for the cozy trio of Telus / Clearnet, Bell and Rogers. (The Virgin Mobility flop shows the ills of this arrangement -- it wasn't real competition, just re-packaging of Bell services under a new logo, and was a flop for that exact reason).

    Where we need to strengthen nationalistic industrial policy is to support promising world-class technology start-ups that has the capability to produce exports.

    Neither flaky fly-by-night flips that just abuses Canadian tax credits nor cozy export credits to corrupt Nortel and the like.

    How about arrangements like 10-year escalating matching loan guarantees coupled to delivery milestones with low-cost government buy-out options if the company gets sold prematurely to non-Canadian HQ international giants like Microsoft or IBM or the like?

    That way taxpayers don't lose but we get to build a broad world-class technology industrial base. Canada has sufficient technical capability (though lacking in managerial and serious entrepreneurial skills) -- this way the most talented can stay in Canada and build a base rather than having to go to US or move to India or China to reach their potential.

    That's the difference between building a solid promising nationalistic future versus protecting the market to enrich undeserving incumbents.
  33. Grampa Canuck from Stirling, ON, Canada writes: There's some pretty good descriptions of GSM, 3G, etc. on Wikipedia. I don't hold out much hope for real competition in the wireless market. The telecoms have all settled into a comforatable oligopily and my confidence level that a new entrant will upset this applecart is not very high. What we'll most likely see is more of the conscious parallelism (understood mutual self interest vs. outright price-rigging) that we've come to languish in. And, don't expect the Republican farm team in Ottawa to really do anything about this state of affairs.
  34. Anti Elvis from Calgary, Canada writes: I'm sure Telus is heading toward GSM in the very near future. Thought I read that somewhere.
  35. Jack Sprat from Canada writes: Actually any newcomer will probably by-pass GSM or CDMA all together and either go with LTE or Wi-Max, as will Bell, Rogers, and Telus. Verizon in the U.S. has already commited to LTE and Sprint I believe is going the Wi-Max route.

    Tony - Alltel was purchased by Verizon earlier this year so they don't or won't exist soon.

    To TheRock - India has at least 2 CDMA carriers including Tata so please don't say they built the country with GSM from the ground up.

    Malankai - Quit trying to re-write history. Yes they started with 2 carriers with Cantel being 1 but Bell was part of Mobility Canada which included Telus (AGT), Sasktel, MTS, BCTel, etc .... well you get the picture. If anyone was at the forfront of wireless in this country it was Telus(AGT in those days). They had this provinced wired before Bell new what it was. And Rogers bought Fido before Telus did (not Bell). Telus originally put in an Offer for Fido then Rogers offered more..
  36. Mike Parker from Canada writes: CDMA is more secure...CORECTO MUNDO...but if your conversations are that private, get a scrampled phone.

    If Telus and Bell had known how scant handsets would be under CDMA they wouldn't have gone that route. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that either Telus or Bell or both will be building a new GSM network.

    What they just bought is a spectrum (frequency) and it is not network specific. That alone would be competition enough, more than Globelive or the regionals can muster.

    For now GSM rules...but we will see what happens when
    802.16e or "mobile WiMAX" comes to market.
  37. Jack Sprat from Canada writes: Mike Parker from Canada writes: CDMA is more secure...CORECTO MUNDO...but if your conversations are that private, get a scrampled phone.

    Mike it's not just about conversations, it's about being able to clone your phone and commit fraud with it. CDMA was invented for the U.S. military and about the only reason it didn't get world wide acceptance was for 2 reasons, the first is each site requires a GPS input and many countries didn't want their communication system reliant upon the U.S. Military, secondly every thing CDMA wise has to be licensed thru Qualicom.

    Like I said prior, LTE and WIMax are coming into play now.
  38. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: I already have top class hi-speed internet service from an Ontario reseller for under $20/mo (taxes included).

    If this new competition can bring internet costs to say half this amount, the that will be great news!

    I don't see the need for a cell phone since the rates are way too high to entice me to get one.

    Will cell phone rates be that far off?
  39. Silver Standard (Used to be gold) from Canada writes: This is suppose to be competition? LOL
  40. Amguada Kickboote from The Sewage Treatment Plant, Canada writes: Such an exhibition of unbridled greed.

    Enough to make a person pine for the days of tin cans and string.
  41. Marilyn Copland from Victoria, Canada writes: Forget the 'making billing simpler to understand, just GIVE US LOWER PRICES LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD!
  42. Dom P from Ottawa, Canada writes: "Tony . from Waterloo, says: The Government missed a golden opportunity here to REALLY help Canadians in this regard. This was the perfect time to get rid of our ridiculous and outdated foreign ownership restrictions in Canada and truly open up the Canadian market to REAL competition."

    My thoughts exactly. We need real competition in this market... canada's wireless market is a farce. Overpriced and outdated plans/phones controlled by a select few companies that don't even really compete with eachother due to different networks.

    AT&T, T-Mobile, O2.... open it up so people can actually afford mobile plans as a real alternative to land lines... I can't say I was following this bidding process, but I was hoping for much more.
  43. Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: Some of those $ Billions spent was just the Big 3 1/2 protectecting their turf. The rest is some new kids on the block trying to get in, but they have a major investment to recoupe, guess who's pocket they'll be into.
    Not mine.
  44. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Cowtown boy, yes, how can any of our suffering big 3 survive on profits of only 2 billion or so each, per year? Amazing how these companies can survive in Canada which such small, small, minuscule profits.
  45. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: And finally, yes they are going to have to go GSM. Maybe WiMax and the like, but in terms of the CDMA vs GSM thing, there is no way in hell that any new entrant would do anything other than GSM unless they are completely stupid.

    I think it is widely acknowledged that CDMA was a mistake for Bell and Telus, but they did it before GSM became the global standard. Now with so many more people on GSM, GSM providers get their phones a year earlier and at half the cost. Once again, there is NO WAY someone will develop a new network on CDMA, so Robbers may finally have some competition, until of course they simply acquire the competition and cancel all their good rate plans, such as what they did with Microcell (Fido).
  46. Rain Couver from Canada writes: If this potentially leads to cheaper options, bring it on!
  47. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: Unless this new spectrum produces the same call quality and privacy as a land line I'll still be a non-cell phone user. Also, if I ever want a cell phone, is there a company that makes just a phone? I don't want all the perifery crap, just a good phone with high call quality for a reasonable price.
  48. iPhone from Canada writes:
    :-- Jimmy K

    Oh, no they did not. GSM was a standard long before Bell decided that CDMA/WCDMA was going to 'smoke' the European communications sector. The decision was made based on anticipated data rates and the dumbest feature functionality ever conceived of, namely WAP.

    Well, no was using data then because it was too expensive and the reality has changed little.

    Try using a DoCoMo phone in Japan. Fast data, cheap data rates and everyone uses it. Ahh, protectionist economy you say. Correct. The Japanese develop and prove technologies in Japan and THEN export those proven products internationally. In the case of DoCoMo, the international community did not want to take a private Japanese standard on.

    My point is, is that there is nothing wrong bi-lateral trade and protectionist thinking. This American idea about free trade is silly. If the Americans want to trade freely, then let then with China. We will see how long the US wants to compete in any sector with the Chinese.

    Problem in Canada is that the market is too small to be a new product venue given the perceived risk. Canadians Telcos are not risk takers.
  49. Richard F from Victoria, Canada writes: It would be nice if Industry Canada would use some of those windfall revenues to promote and subsidize wireless in some of the more underserved sections of the country. Throwing the money into general revenues... that's like throwing money down a black pork barrel hole
  50. iPhone from Canada writes:
    The most effective method of competing with Rogers is to go after the data segment of cellular communications. Provide just enough voice but focus on corporate, utility and student data applications. Data is the growth area, and Rogers networks (they say) are under provisioned.

    Establish these data sectors and the voice will follow if that is important. Voice will be data by that time anyway.

    I would also open the WiFi connections to enable free voice. Put the heat on Rogers and gain customer loyality by giving the user a real cost discount. I would add Skype in say an gPhone. That would get Rogers attentions.

    If Rogers has an exclusive deal with RIM, then I would include an competitive Asian key-board product, say Samsung.
    ~
  51. iPhone from Canada writes:
    I would like to see a cellular transmitter tuned to 'public' and free part of wireless spectrum. This would enable growth in cellular Telco bypass technologies. [WiFi is not a switched spectrum.]

    In this way, individuals could operate say, WiMax protocols in this public spectrum. We need a way to keep the Telco's honest.

    There is a concern that the Telcos will begin to lock down the Internet by segmenting traffic. I believe that this hegemonic behaviour of say, Rogers could be counter-balanced by 'public' spectrum use for 'public' cellular use, just like National Public Radio broadcasts on its own frequencies.

    It is the Telcos that are supposed to be providing subscribers with features rather plundering as much as they can. Rogers is functioning as a carpet bagger and Bell (if it is sold) will also. We need to regrow these industries from the ground up, in a manner that ensures the Internet remains independent.
    ~
  52. Stude Ham from Canada writes:
    cheaper services from the big back room boys who could afford to buy out these spectrrums???

    oh yahhhhh...just like cheaper oil from the cartels...
  53. Jerry g from Canada writes: I bet this will turn out like many other suppliers of the past. After spending these huge amounts of money on spectrum, they would have any money left over to implement the network. And eventually one of the big 3 will goble them up at a fraction of the cost. The same old....and prices will actually go up.
  54. adrian sohn from Guelph, Canada writes: when will the lower prices start? It didnt say that in the article
  55. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes:
    Canadians would have cheaper wireless rates tomorrow if Verizon had been allowed to bid. The cartel will stick handle around this threat to its incredible profits just like it did the last time.

  56. Gord Lewis from rolling on the floor, Canada writes: hahahahahahahaha . . . great article, but it belongs in the Arts section under 'Comedy'. Here are just a few gems: "The incumbents . . . insist the new arrivals won't be able to match their quality and reliability of service." "consumers will see fresh choices from regional cable operators" "We've pretty much got the country covered,” said Mirko Bibic, senior vice-president of regulatory affairs for Bell Canada." "Industry Minister Jim Prentice said the results of the auction exceeded all expectations. “We think consumers will be the big winners in this auction,” " Too funny!!!!!!!!!! won't be able to match their quality and reliability of service!!!!! Our fearless leaders are great on the THEORY of why prices SHOULD fall, but seriously, a cartel of 4 or 5 will be no better than a cartel of 3. One statement was true: Canada is the most lucrative market in the world -- no wonder!! Until Ottawa cronies give consumers real protections (and not just in the cell phone arena) and prohibit abusive practices by cartels, we will not see competitive pricing. Maybe it is time to let the Yanks show us how that can be done, because I am not wild about working well past 65 to finance the gold-pated retirements at 55 of all those Bell employees. Keeping Canadian corporations 'strong' is just not worth the cost.
  57. Erik Richards from Winnipeg, Canada, writes: While Industry Canada is no doubt rubbing their hands with glee over the greater than expected windfall, I can't help but wonder just how cheaper services are going to pay for the cost of obtaining these licences. Phone carriers spent almost $5 BILLION - that money will be paid in large part by customers.

    Phone carriers don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars and then turn around and try and undercut other carriers - they see the money Rogers and Bell and Telus are making and they want to make that kind of money. Sure, they might offer a few cents' cheaper rates here and there, or a new feature or two. But I'd be very surprised if we see much change from the status quo within the next 2-3 years.
  58. Patrick M from Canada writes: I've heard the wind blow before!
  59. Gord Lewis from rolling on the floor, Canada writes: While you are at it, Ottawa, and before you discard the green flag you are currently wrapping yourself in, do something to clean up the E-environment. What I mean is: telecoms forcing us to replace devices prematurely, pricing replacement batteries as high as entire new devices, deliberately making devices obsolete, etc., etc. There are so many smple and easy ways to make progress that do not involve corrupt and idealogical bickering over carbon.

    (I guess I am repeating my previous post -- give us REAL competition, not BS.)
  60. Under Northern Sky from Germany writes: I wouldn't be surprised if the newcomers just come in to build something and then sell it to the incumbents later for a profit like Clearnet and Fido.
  61. Tim Cares from Canada writes: I bet they form their companies, create good services, then sell out, just like Branson did.
  62. Tim Cares from Canada writes: And, as Gord Lewis said, Ottawa should ensure that we can take our phones from one company to another, if they are using compatible systems.
  63. Your Neighbor from Canada writes: I hate Rogers.
  64. Tim Cares from Canada writes: How are these companies going to compete when they just spent hundreds of millions of dollars just getting in the game?
  65. Jouko Savioja from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: It is too bad the media keeps refering to "national networks". There is no national network in Canada. There is no national carrier from Sault Ste Marie to the Kenora with the exception of mediocre coverage by Telus in Thunder Bay. Thunder Bay Telephone has coverage from Wawa to Kenora so the national Networks are missing about a fifth of the country.
  66. Jouko Savioja from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: Opps I meant Rogers instead of Telus
  67. Bill Foonman from Jacksonville, United States writes: Just give us one good excuse to leave the Three Thieves and their unbearable price gouging and institutional arrogance and we'll grab it.

    Bring on the competition!
  68. Tom Richards from Canada writes: By the the time our two and three year contracts (Bell, Telus and Rogers users) expire all the prices will be the same.
  69. Bobby Culture from Canada writes: It's about time!! Years too late!!!
  70. Joe Smith from Canada writes: No-one ever mentions Virgin. I believe they lease bandwidth from Bell, but the monthly rates are much lower. I am currently paying $25 per month for service that cost me $45 per month with Bell.
  71. R Shrestha from Mississauga, Canada writes: I think Rogers and Bell have already reaped off so much from Canadians. They are suckers - I think that's enough to say. We need someone who can provide service cheaper with more features and data. In wireless world, Canadians are way behind even that developing countries. I hate to bind with those 2/3 years contract, having to pay piece by piece for every features, and of course, system access fee. I'm eagerly waiting to see the development.............
  72. therock 112 from Canada writes: to "Jack Sprat" :

    India was built on gsm ground up, CDMA was not there from the early days of GSM, and CDMA isnt that big in India anyways, we will have to see where its (CDMA's) future is going to be, especially with wimax,UMTS, LTE etc in the picture.

    As far as canada and competition is concerned, I believe if CRTC mandated that all wireless operators jump on the GSM bandwagon, competition would be automatic......agreed CDMA maybe superior more than one way in comparison, but the key is, all the 3 or more large operator need to get onboard with the same technology and somehow as long as CRTC is sleeping, this may never be achieved. If the future is in WiMAX or LTE or whatever then CRTC needs to mandate all operators to go towards it with set milestones instead of ripping people off with different technologies in the same country !!

    the other part of the problem is, Canadians are too docile, waaay too laid back and too polite, they rather bend over than protecs and revolt......this maybe the primary problem. We dont have to be arrogant and loud as the yankees but atleast we can look out for ourselves from corporate greed !!!
  73. all good from i could be your neighbour, Canada writes: same pigs will fly, on the form of ham sandwich. i agree with the coment about the comedy.this is funny: national coverage, competitive, bll bla bla. canada is up there right behind albania and mozanbique when it cames down to cell phones.
  74. Ballin Munson from toronto, Canada writes: 1. The economics of service a large, thinly populated country will continue to effect prices. 2. Yesterday, someone compared Montana to Saskatchewan, and still wondered why prices were higher in Sask. Well, simply, Montana is part of a 300 million-consumer market, and Saskatchewan is part of a 32 million-consumer market. Very Very different economics. 3. Perhaps most importantly, is that the telecom industry in Canada is still working off the decades of regulation, which affected the landline business. On of the universities did a study, around 1988, which indicated that unlimited long distance for all Canadians, could have been provided for around $18 per month. However, the regulated carriers were obligated to provide a rate of return which meant that “grannies in Guelph” would never have to pay more than $8 month for basic land line. The determination was that for the people who NEVER make long distance calls, they should not have to subsidize those who DO make long distance calls. For all of the outcry against telecom pricing in Canada, why does no one complain that it costs the same to mail a letter from Corner Brook Newfoundland, to Prince George BC. than it does to mail it across the street in downtown Vancouver? Or do we not hold the government responsible for anything? 4. Notice that the contrarian Yvonne (G&M plant) has not chimed in (if she can’t be in the first 5 or 10, she doesn’t post). It also indicates that discussion is going well, and needs no input. 5. People will not read others posts, and continues to relate their own apocryphal opinion….
  75. therock 112 from Canada writes: i totally understand the economics of serving a large area......with a small population, got no problem with that.

    the important issue at hand is this, Did Rogers post a record profit? if yes, then they are making hand over fist.....and for now they can lower their plan packages etc and make a lesser profit. I am not suggesting they lose their shirt over it.....

    but if they are posting losses, sure I can donate some steady stream of monthly funds to them.....
  76. Winston Smith from Canada writes: Keep dreaming. The established players will just pull out their old playbook and kill the new entrants as they did with Fido and Clearnet. They've already succeeded in forcing the new players to bid more than they need to for the spectrum.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.