Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Broadband Internet - competition stifled by Liberals ( while you are busy watching covid-19 news Trudeau slips this through).


Recommended Posts

While you are caught up in the Covid-19 frenzy, Trudeau is quietly slipping through orders in council, free from any parliament oversight or questioning. On August 15, 2020, Cabinet issued an order that included its expectations that the CRTC amend the terms of a decision it issued in August, 2019, which found that the rates charged by the incumbent major telecom and cable companies (such as Bell Canada, Rogers and Videotron) for internet services for at least the past four years were not "just and reasonable".   https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/vmedia-federal-cabinet-condemns-canadian-families-to-higher-internet-prices-in-bailout-of-big-telcos-870332467.html   

Summary: the incumbent big telecoms are spinning the line that they cannot afford to support the Liberal policy dream of broadband coverage over 95% of Canada, if they are forced to compete with each other in the cities. So without extracting any commitment from these big telecoms to actually build anything, Trudeau says 'at your service sir'.

The full text of Cabinet's decision (https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2020/08/order-in-council-responding-to-petitions-to-the-governor-in-council-concerning-telecom-order-crtc-2019-288.html) contained elements so supportive of the incumbents that lawyers for the incumbents immediately raced to the FCA with a request that the Court reopen the record and take the contents of the order and the Minister's statement into consideration in its deliberations.

I was very surprised to hear that a boot-licking entity like the CRTC had even dared to suggest that  'unreasonable' broadband prices are being charged. I am not surprised to find that Trudeau's puppeteers wait until the middle of the covid crisis to jerk his hand to signing the refutation of the CRTC's suggestion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I see a lot of memes and hear complaints that wireless costs 4x as much in Canada as everywhere else. IMO it's to be expected.

We have 40M people spread out over 10M sq km. Providing coverage to 10M sq km with only 40M residents = 4 people per sq km. 

I can easily see the difference between coverage in Canada and coverage in Japan. I don't expect to pay the same price that they do. They have 200 people per sq km. They have 50x as many people per service area.

How fair is it for companies to build infrastructure to cover most of Canada, and then compete with companies that don't build anything, and just operate in urban areas?

I hate Trudeau more than you hate disease and suffering, but I'm on side with people who say that Canada's wireless should be much more expensive than everyone else's. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

While it is very true that we have an expensive geo-political landscape to negotiate in order to provide wireless service, I seem to remember that there was once a direct line to the PMO through Chretien's son.  I am sure that still exists and is being exercised regularly.   From a partisan perspective: just remember who let Wind in without the CRTC BS and dramatically dropped cell phone costs across Canada - and that same massive drop in revenue did not seem to bankrupt a single provider.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



  • Similar Content

    • By Evening Star
      It's hard to find good coverage of this issue but it seems like it might have major repercussions:
      http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech
      http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/01/09/gregory_alan_elliott_frustrations_boil_over_in_twitter_harassment_trial.html
      http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-the-twitter-trial-of-gregory-elliott-is-becoming-much-like-twitter-itself-shrill-and-uber-sensitive
      http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/448441/alleged-harassment-over-twitter-leads-to-criminal-charges-for-toronto-man/
      Depending on the source, Elliott is either being targeted and silenced for holding views that are in conflict with those of young feminist activists or he was actually stalking and sexually harassing young women online. Either way, this could be the first case of someone going to court for social media harassment.
      What I find curious is that the accusation of sexual harassment only seems to appear in the Metro version of the story. Based on what the Post and the Star report, it seems like Elliott's comments were relatively mild and he is in fact being targeted here.
      Unfortunately, it seems like most of the coverage of this story is coming from sources that I am reluctant to trust, such as MRA groups. Anyone have info or thoughts on this?
      Edited: added link to Christie Blatchford's piece from last week
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...