Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

CRTC - Soon to be obsolete


Recommended Posts

Yes, the relaxation of the rules will sure benefit Canadians, which is why the industry is bribing the politicians involved...
Saturn, I don't know what you are trying to argue with that post quoting some academic who quoted extensively the NDP critic Charlie Angus on broadcasting.

The fact is the telecoms are amongst the biggest schmoozers in the business. Rogers and Bell and the others played both sides of the street contributing both to the Liberals and the Tories. They all have former senior civil servants in their ranks, often with experience from the CRTC.

If you are trying to suggest that the telecoms are influencing government policy, you're about 40 years too late.

The CRTC does not exist to protect the consumer. It exists to protect the telecom industry.

Bernier has signaled that this protection racket is about to end.

Hold the phone.

In the eyes of the Tory government, that's exactly what the CRTC has been doing for far too long. And federal Industry Minister Maxime Bernier acted aggressively yesterday to change all that in the name of the Canadian consumer.

Clearly impatient with the pace of deregulation under the aegis of the federal regulator, Mr. Bernier has effectively seized the file from the CRTC, unilaterally opening local telephone markets across Canada to unfettered competition.

Ottawa Citizen

Modern technology means that there is an abundance of competition in all the various media markets. If the CRTC ever had a reason for being, it certainly does not have one now.

The CRTC does not exist to protect the consumer. But the consumer still has some minor influence over the CRTC through voting and opponents to the industry have someone to lobby too. The removal of the CRTC means that voters will have absolutely zero influence over it and the consumer will the stuck with and forced to consume the BS the industry shoves down our throats.

Switch your provider and vote with your $$.

Is everything so partisan in your world?

must be a small, sad world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You may hear that the big phone companies won a major victory. You may even see a change in your monthly phone bill.

Ignore all this.

Maxime Bernier took the right, momentous decision.

Canada's established phone companies have won their longstanding fight for less regulation of their local phone business — a move the telcos say will benefit consumers.

On Monday, Industry Minister Maxime Bernier gave BCE (Bell Canada), Telus and the country's other incumbent telcos the power to set their own prices, as long as there is sufficient competition in the local area.

CBC

That's how the CBC would choose to present this decision.

I would say rather that my vote for the Conservatives has been vindicated and only a Conservative minister from Quebec could do this. Dion Liberals couldn't. Whatever Harper's government does in its short mandate, this decision implies the greatest long term effects for Canada.

Hats off to Bernier.

Well, time will bear out whether this benefits the customer or not. But when such policy choices are made, they should also be accompanied by removal of artificial barriers to entry as well. Do you know what the current competitive status is? Can any Canadian company work anywhere? Can US phone companies serve us? If these restraints remain in place, then Bernier's policy will not really be fair to consumers.

No, but that's what conservative policy on "competition" amounts to: Let the private monopolies run things the way they want and then "argue" that this will somehow benefit the consumer.

So you are in favour of the government reulate how much you pay for your phone service?

Let me ask you this - Did you pay mroe or less for Long distance calls before competition or after?

California let such "competition" in its electricity market and consumers ended up paying 5 times as much for electricity.

Here we are not talking about allowing more competition (which is good for the consumer), we are talking about letting the current industry players charge us more for the same services. If it was about competition, the big players wouldn't be working so hard to change the rules - competition is bad for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In what way will more competition not be 'fair' to consumers?

The consumer will not get "competition". Competition is bad for monopolists/oligopolists. If we were getting more competition through these changes, the industry giants would be quite opposed to the changes - not supporting them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may hear that the big phone companies won a major victory. You may even see a change in your monthly phone bill.

Ignore all this.

Maxime Bernier took the right, momentous decision.

Canada's established phone companies have won their longstanding fight for less regulation of their local phone business — a move the telcos say will benefit consumers.

On Monday, Industry Minister Maxime Bernier gave BCE (Bell Canada), Telus and the country's other incumbent telcos the power to set their own prices, as long as there is sufficient competition in the local area.

CBC

That's how the CBC would choose to present this decision.

I would say rather that my vote for the Conservatives has been vindicated and only a Conservative minister from Quebec could do this. Dion Liberals couldn't. Whatever Harper's government does in its short mandate, this decision implies the greatest long term effects for Canada.

Hats off to Bernier.

Well, time will bear out whether this benefits the customer or not. But when such policy choices are made, they should also be accompanied by removal of artificial barriers to entry as well. Do you know what the current competitive status is? Can any Canadian company work anywhere? Can US phone companies serve us? If these restraints remain in place, then Bernier's policy will not really be fair to consumers.

No, but that's what conservative policy on "competition" amounts to: Let the private monopolies run things the way they want and then "argue" that this will somehow benefit the consumer.

So you are in favour of the government reulate how much you pay for your phone service?

Let me ask you this - Did you pay mroe or less for Long distance calls before competition or after?

California let such "competition" in its electricity market and consumers ended up paying 5 times as much for electricity.

Here we are not talking about allowing more competition (which is good for the consumer), we are talking about letting the current industry players charge us more for the same services. If it was about competition, the big players wouldn't be working so hard to change the rules - competition is bad for them.

Well not only are you blindingly partisan, you are simply un-educated about the issue (i'm sure you could care less however). The CRTC forced the big players to charge MORE. The big players were fighting to be able to charge LESS.

I'd call you an idiot but your posts here clearly make that assertion on my behalf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way will more competition not be 'fair' to consumers?

The consumer will not get "competition". Competition is bad for monopolists/oligopolists. If we were getting more competition through these changes, the industry giants would be quite opposed to the changes - not supporting them.

Again - you are simply wrong. They were fighting for less regulation so that they would be able to offer 'bundles' like the cable companies can for example. They want market share, not higher prices.

Clearly you are way over your head here. Maybe try another topic to spread your socilast clap-trap because it's not working here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They want market share, not higher prices.

Yet, I laugh and laugh.....sorry, they want both, cause, you know, that's what the shareholders want too....

eh? Increasing market share is most often done though offering a superior product at a low price. This deregulation allows more companies to do this. You think this is bad?

Do you understnad what you are talkign about here? Why are shareholders bad? I bet that %60 of the people on this forum have shares in the afreomentioned companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
eh? Increasing market share is most often done though offering a superior product at a low price. This deregulation allows more companies to do this. You think this is bad?

Do you understnad what you are talkign about here? Why are shareholders bad? I bet that %60 of the people on this forum have shares in the afreomentioned companies.

Don't make me laugh. In the real world increasing marketshare is most often accomplished by buying the competition.

......and please, if you don't understand the pressures on CEOs to improve shareholder value, leave your strawmen at the door.

Link to post
Share on other sites

eh? Increasing market share is most often done though offering a superior product at a low price. This deregulation allows more companies to do this. You think this is bad?

Do you understnad what you are talkign about here? Why are shareholders bad? I bet that %60 of the people on this forum have shares in the afreomentioned companies.

Don't make me laugh. In the real world increasing marketshare is most often accomplished by buying the competition.

......and please, if you don't understand the pressures on CEOs to improve shareholder value, leave your strawmen at the door.

Well they should feel the pressure of the shareholders to increase value! The shareholders are the boss of the CEO - as it should be. Tell me what is inherently wrong with increasing shareholder value?

Perhaps you should do less laughing and more explaining.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the relaxation of the rules will sure benefit Canadians, which is why the industry is bribing the politicians involved...
Saturn, I don't know what you are trying to argue with that post quoting some academic who quoted extensively the NDP critic Charlie Angus on broadcasting.

The fact is the telecoms are amongst the biggest schmoozers in the business. Rogers and Bell and the others played both sides of the street contributing both to the Liberals and the Tories. They all have former senior civil servants in their ranks, often with experience from the CRTC.

If you are trying to suggest that the telecoms are influencing government policy, you're about 40 years too late.

The CRTC does not exist to protect the consumer. It exists to protect the telecom industry.

Bernier has signaled that this protection racket is about to end.

Hold the phone.

In the eyes of the Tory government, that's exactly what the CRTC has been doing for far too long. And federal Industry Minister Maxime Bernier acted aggressively yesterday to change all that in the name of the Canadian consumer.

Clearly impatient with the pace of deregulation under the aegis of the federal regulator, Mr. Bernier has effectively seized the file from the CRTC, unilaterally opening local telephone markets across Canada to unfettered competition.

Ottawa Citizen

Modern technology means that there is an abundance of competition in all the various media markets. If the CRTC ever had a reason for being, it certainly does not have one now.

From the same article:

The federal government's concept -- which now prevails -- means that telecom companies will be freed from the current requirement that they prove they've lost 25 per cent of their customer base to competition in a specified area before they are exempt from regulation, That threshold will be replaced by a new test that requires only that there are at least three other non-affiliated competitors in a given market.

For business accounts, the terms are even more generous: only two competing wireline network operators need to be in the game.

Significantly, however, there is no reference made to the possibility of re-regulation of the sector in the event that one of the players -- a cable company, for example -- either opts or is driven out of the telephone business. Such a development could easily skew the market power of a single player.

For now, though, consumers score a win, as do the large telecom companies that have lobbied relentlessly for this change.

Mr. Bernier's move, furthermore, allows the telecoms to engage in something called "target pricing" -- which is already allowed in the wireless sector. That means that telecoms are allowed to cut prices in more competitive areas, which some argue is an unfair form of cross-subsidization.

That makes it much harder for any new entrants in the telephone market to gain ground, because the incumbents can move quickly to offer incentives to return to their fold.

Overall, expect some good deals in the first year or two and then face monopoly/duopoly afterwards. The only difference between now and then is that the big players won't have any constraints placed on them by the CRTC as they do now and you get to pay double for the same service you get now.

P.S. As for the "academic" quoting NDP critic so and so, you are free to get Oda's donations from Elections Canada. Academic or not, the list of donations won't change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the relaxation of the rules will sure benefit Canadians, which is why the industry is bribing the politicians involved...
Saturn, I don't know what you are trying to argue with that post quoting some academic who quoted extensively the NDP critic Charlie Angus on broadcasting.

The fact is the telecoms are amongst the biggest schmoozers in the business. Rogers and Bell and the others played both sides of the street contributing both to the Liberals and the Tories. They all have former senior civil servants in their ranks, often with experience from the CRTC.

If you are trying to suggest that the telecoms are influencing government policy, you're about 40 years too late.

The CRTC does not exist to protect the consumer. It exists to protect the telecom industry.

Bernier has signaled that this protection racket is about to end.

Hold the phone.

In the eyes of the Tory government, that's exactly what the CRTC has been doing for far too long. And federal Industry Minister Maxime Bernier acted aggressively yesterday to change all that in the name of the Canadian consumer.

Clearly impatient with the pace of deregulation under the aegis of the federal regulator, Mr. Bernier has effectively seized the file from the CRTC, unilaterally opening local telephone markets across Canada to unfettered competition.

Ottawa Citizen

Modern technology means that there is an abundance of competition in all the various media markets. If the CRTC ever had a reason for being, it certainly does not have one now.

From the same article:

The federal government's concept -- which now prevails -- means that telecom companies will be freed from the current requirement that they prove they've lost 25 per cent of their customer base to competition in a specified area before they are exempt from regulation, That threshold will be replaced by a new test that requires only that there are at least three other non-affiliated competitors in a given market.

For business accounts, the terms are even more generous: only two competing wireline network operators need to be in the game.

Significantly, however, there is no reference made to the possibility of re-regulation of the sector in the event that one of the players -- a cable company, for example -- either opts or is driven out of the telephone business. Such a development could easily skew the market power of a single player.

For now, though, consumers score a win, as do the large telecom companies that have lobbied relentlessly for this change.

Mr. Bernier's move, furthermore, allows the telecoms to engage in something called "target pricing" -- which is already allowed in the wireless sector. That means that telecoms are allowed to cut prices in more competitive areas, which some argue is an unfair form of cross-subsidization.

That makes it much harder for any new entrants in the telephone market to gain ground, because the incumbents can move quickly to offer incentives to return to their fold.

Overall, expect some good deals in the first year or two and then face monopoly/duopoly afterwards. The only difference between now and then is that the big players won't have any constraints placed on them by the CRTC as they do now and you get to pay double for the same service you get now.

P.S. As for the "academic" quoting NDP critic so and so, you are free to get Oda's donations from Elections Canada. Academic or not, the list of donations won't change.

Well I guess we will ahev to wait for Spring to see how poorly educated you are on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have over 400 channels on my satellite. Not sure where you are getting the idea that there is no competition in TV?

Is it a a Canadian satellite company? If the answer is yes, then the argument is that there is no competition and that the Canadian company is being protected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I guess we will ahev to wait for Spring to see how poorly educated you are on the subject.

You could use an education yourself. Can't you even see the moderator point out that you're being annoying with your huge posts of quotes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, expect some good deals in the first year or two and then face monopoly/duopoly afterwards. The only difference between now and then is that the big players won't have any constraints placed on them by the CRTC as they do now and you get to pay double for the same service you get now.

P.S. As for the "academic" quoting NDP critic so and so, you are free to get Oda's donations from Elections Canada. Academic or not, the list of donations won't change.

Well I guess we will ahev to wait for Spring to see how poorly educated you are on the subject.

I'm afraid you'll have to wait a couple of years. I don't think that the big companies will be able to deal with the little guys by the spring. Put this in your 2009 calendar and when you get there note that there are just 2 (3 max) suppliers of local phone service and that their prices are higher than today (in real $).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, expect some good deals in the first year or two and then face monopoly/duopoly afterwards. The only difference between now and then is that the big players won't have any constraints placed on them by the CRTC as they do now and you get to pay double for the same service you get now.

P.S. As for the "academic" quoting NDP critic so and so, you are free to get Oda's donations from Elections Canada. Academic or not, the list of donations won't change.

Well I guess we will ahev to wait for Spring to see how poorly educated you are on the subject.

I'm afraid you'll have to wait a couple of years. I don't think that the big companies will be able to deal with the little guys by the spring. Put this in your 2009 calendar and when you get there note that there are just 2 (3 max) suppliers of local phone service and that their prices are higher than today (in real $).

What about in rural Canada where there is only 1 provider... I'm screwed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess we will ahev to wait for Spring to see how poorly educated you are on the subject.

I'm afraid you'll have to wait a couple of years. I don't think that the big companies will be able to deal with the little guys by the spring. Put this in your 2009 calendar and when you get there note that there are just 2 (3 max) suppliers of local phone service and that their prices are higher than today (in real $).

What about in rural Canada where there is only 1 provider... I'm screwed

Well, in rural Canada you'll get an almost immediate increase in prices so that your provider can charge below cost in urban areas to undercut the competition. In effect, you'll be subsidizing the good deals city dwellers will get. Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Overall, expect some good deals in the first year or two and then face monopoly/duopoly afterwards. The only difference between now and then is that the big players won't have any constraints placed on them by the CRTC as they do now and you get to pay double for the same service you get now.
Take the example of telephones. I have a landline with Bell but I make no long distance calls through Bell. I don't know what monopoly or duopoly you are referring to. In Montreal, I have four or five potential wires coming into my house, several wireless telephone alternatives and any number of satellite TV possibilities. The city of Toronto (yes! a municipal government!) is setting up a wireless Internet network for the downtown.

This is an industry where federal government regulators have no place.

Face it, governments may have a role to play in an economy but broadly regulating private telecommunications firms is not one of them.

Nowadays, people who want governments to nationalize or direct major industries exist only on university campuses, on Internet forums or in Cuba.

----

And Saturn, would please stop destroying otherwise good threads by clicking on reply and copying previous posts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Overall, expect some good deals in the first year or two and then face monopoly/duopoly afterwards. The only difference between now and then is that the big players won't have any constraints placed on them by the CRTC as they do now and you get to pay double for the same service you get now.
Take the example of telephones. I have a landline with Bell but I make no long distance calls through Bell. I don't know what monopoly or duopoly you are referring to. In Montreal, I have four or five potential wires coming into my house, several wireless telephone alternatives and any number of satellite TV possibilities. The city of Toronto (yes! a municipal government!) is setting up a wireless Internet network for the downtown.

This is an industry where federal government regulators have no place.

Face it, governments may have a role to play in an economy but broadly regulating private telecommunications firms is not one of them.

Nowadays, people who want governments to nationalize or direct major industries exist only on university campuses, on Internet forums or in Cuba.

There is a monopoly in small town Canada, for example i only get MTS for landlines, as do everyone else in town. We don't get Telus or Bell or Rogers or whatever, if this goes through MTS has me hooped. Just like the star choice/bell duopoly, a person has to pay a pile of money for crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Take the example of telephones. I have a landline with Bell but I make no long distance calls through Bell. I don't know what monopoly or duopoly you are referring to. In Montreal, I have four or five potential wires coming into my house, several wireless telephone alternatives and any number of satellite TV possibilities. The city of Toronto (yes! a municipal government!) is setting up a wireless Internet network for the downtown.

This is an industry where federal government regulators have no place.

Face it, governments may have a role to play in an economy but broadly regulating private telecommunications firms is not one of them.

That's why they should lift ownership restrictions and invite U.S. telcos and satellite companies and wireless services to open up in Canada. Even more competition. The objective should be to drive the prices down. Right now Canada's protected wireless is more expensive than any country with expansive wireless service.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Overall, expect some good deals in the first year or two and then face monopoly/duopoly afterwards. The only difference between now and then is that the big players won't have any constraints placed on them by the CRTC as they do now and you get to pay double for the same service you get now.
Take the example of telephones. I have a landline with Bell but I make no long distance calls through Bell. I don't know what monopoly or duopoly you are referring to. In Montreal, I have four or five potential wires coming into my house, several wireless telephone alternatives and any number of satellite TV possibilities. The city of Toronto (yes! a municipal government!) is setting up a wireless Internet network for the downtown.

This is an industry where federal government regulators have no place.

Face it, governments may have a role to play in an economy but broadly regulating private telecommunications firms is not one of them.

Nowadays, people who want governments to nationalize or direct major industries exist only on university campuses, on Internet forums or in Cuba.

----

And Saturn, would please stop destroying otherwise good threads by clicking on reply and copying previous posts?

??? Are you saying that replying somehow damages the threads? I suppose not replying will make for a great discussion. You can always put me on your "ignore" list.

In fact, the govenment created legislated monopolies, so you are darn wrong. Creating monopolies and then deregulating and letting them do whatever is best for them is not good for the consumer. It is the govenment's business to ensure that there is enough competition first and then to deregulate second. All the new changes do is remove regulations that were placed to ensure that newcomers to the industry are not shut out by the industry giants. This is why the industry giants fought and lobbied so hard to overturn these regulations. They don't want to share the industry with anyone else - they want to stifle competition before it even begins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And Saturn, would please stop destroying otherwise good threads by clicking on reply and copying previous posts?
??? Are you saying that replying somehow damages the threads? I suppose not replying will make for a great discussion.
No. You misunderstood what Aug91 is saying. He is not insulting the content or quality of your reply.

He is saying that the text layout and format of your reply contains too much quoting. It is not necessary to repeat an entire post by QUOTATION in your reply. We should be condensing our posts and replies to contain only the relevent text. Otherwise, scrolling through the thread becomes tiresome and long.

Refer to these threads:

Using the [ Quote ] Feature: -- Avoid using more too many quotes!

Trim Your Posts and Quotes -- Don't just hit "Reply"

for more details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood. Thx for the clarification.

I want to add to my previous comment that deregulation does not equal competition. There can be a lot of regulation in competitive industries (like the food industry) and no regulation in industries with no or very little competition (like the OS industry). But many incorrectly equate deregulation and competition and then push deregulation under the pretext that it will result in competition. In this particular case, he devil is in the details as usual. When you look at the details, it becomes clear that the changes may benfit some consumers in the short term. Over the long term though, the changes will reduce competition and the consumer will be the loser. Big players don't benefit from more competition in their industry and they sure don't lobby and push for more competition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess we will ahev to wait for Spring to see how poorly educated you are on the subject.

I'm afraid you'll have to wait a couple of years. I don't think that the big companies will be able to deal with the little guys by the spring. Put this in your 2009 calendar and when you get there note that there are just 2 (3 max) suppliers of local phone service and that their prices are higher than today (in real $).

What about in rural Canada where there is only 1 provider... I'm screwed

Well, in rural Canada you'll get an almost immediate increase in prices so that your provider can charge below cost in urban areas to undercut the competition. In effect, you'll be subsidizing the good deals city dwellers will get. Sorry.

Again, you are simply wrong. Telco's remain regulated in rural markets where there are less then 3 providers. Does your partisan clap-trap always end up getting your foot in your mouth?

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.




  • Tell a friend

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