fair competition in Canada... ?

[FirstCaveman]

I would welcome Verizon if they built their own infrastructure. This would create a variety of one-time Canadian jobs including construction, and then provide on-going maintenance, upgrading and expansion tech jobs.

I'm no fan of our big three, but I believe that lowering the barriers to entry for a US mega-corporation is unfair. While it's too early to judge, after Verizon has won their market share, I just see them jumping on the same cellular gravy train that frustrates us now.

BTW, Ellen Roseman has a very good article in today's Toronto Star entitled "Your Guide to Big Three wireless savings". Worth a read even for the website addys if you are considering changing your provider, buying a new phone etc.

 

[SchlongConery]

The vast majority of Bell and Rogers shareholders are Canadians. Can we say the same for Verizon?

You and your straw man fallacies.

Who fucking cares?

You know that Virgin Mobile is owned by a Brit don't you? And that they came into Canada in 2005 as a joint venture with Bell. Sharing Bell infrastructure "that Canadians paid for". And that in 2009 Bell bought them out and now Virgin Mobile Canada is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bell?

As I said... Bell, Rogers and Telus shareholders will do just fine. Just as they did when they wailed about Wind and Mobilicity coming to town.

FYI, Wind is owned by an Egyptian and is part of a global cell phone conglomerate BIGGER than Verizon? They have over 200 million customers in 16 countries and over 66,000 employees. Bell and Rogers wailed and wailed like the fucking crocodile teared monoplies they are when this HUGE company came to Canada partnering with Yak Communications. They have managed to score about 600,000 subscribers in Canada

About the only thing that has changed since they entered the market with their unlimited plans with no commitment is that cell phone and data prices have gone down across the board, and cancellation terms have become slightly more fair to the consumer.

 

[blackrock13]

Been thinking about this for awhile. Yes heard the ads.
I understand on one hand what the idea is, to bring in a cell phone company that may offer lower rates.
On the other hand they should not be allowed to exclusively buy up smaller Canadian companies and then use our network.

Aren't the smaller companies also using the networks of Bell and Rogers, paying a fee of course. Verizon pays for the smaller companies, their hard assets and equipments, customers and the contracts they have with Roger and Bell.

 

[SchlongConery]

I would welcome Verizon if they built their own infrastructure. This would create a variety of one-time Canadian jobs including construction, and then provide on-going maintenance, upgrading and expansion tech jobs.

.

This is not a make work project and it is foolish to duplicate the four networks out there. Those costs would get passed along to the consumer, it is not like Mr. Verizon is going to donate his money to Canada. Besides, there are already complaints of too many cell towers and antennas out there.

And to a large degree, there will be huge investment in infrastructure by the new competitor as the new frequency they are selling requires new transmitters etc.

If Bell and Rogers get this freq they may simply buy it and delay implementation until they amortize the cost of their existing equipment.

 

[SchlongConery]

Been thinking about this for awhile. Yes heard the ads.
I understand on one hand what the idea is, to bring in a cell phone company that may offer lower rates.
On the other hand they should not be allowed to exclusively buy up smaller Canadian companies and then use our network.

The small companies already use this network. Bell and Telus shares their networks already. ALL of it. And everyone pays for the use of the network. At the end of the day, it is USERS that pay for the network. That means you and I.

 

[onthebottom]

The ads are carefully crafted to appeal to every emotional response of a typical Canadian. Envy, entitlement, patriotism etc.

But they are so full of shit.

They say the network was "paid for by Canadian taxpayers". Suggesting that the networks were built with taxes. I suppose that since cell phone users pay taxes, it is technically true. But it is dishonest.

Any new entrant to the market will pay to use these networks and have to contribute towards future capital expenditures to improve the networks.

This is the very same argument Ma Bell made when other companies were allowed to buy wholesale use of the underutilized copper networks and resell to consumers. Without this competition like Acanac, Tek Savvy etc etc. we'd still be stuck to Bell and their previously high rates.

Bell and Rogers are doing quite well for their shareholders. Who are the ONLY parties that matter to them. Not Canadians. They offshore every single job they can, wothout any regard to Canadian jobs.

They will continue to do well, or better, with Verizon as a competitor.

The Harper Gov't is of the opinion that Canadian consumers will be better served in the long run by this international competition and that Bell, Rogers and Telus will survive and thrive.

This is spot on, well supported by the number of threads on buying from the US.... clearly when Canadian firms are given protection they take advantage of Canadian consumers.

OTB

 

[red]

The vast majority of Bell and Rogers shareholders are Canadians. Can we say the same for Verizon?

no verizon only lists two canadian shareholders.







an S. harper and J. Baird

 

[SirWanker]

This is spot on, well supported by the number of threads on buying from the US.... clearly when Canadian firms are given protection they take advantage of Canadian consumers.
OTB

How is this any different from the American protectionism?
Remember about the big deal made about the North American Free Trade Agreement where it should have meant lower prices for all consumers?

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

Rogers call centres are in Canada and if the agent speaks with an accent, it is because we are a diversified country composed of many ethnic groups who don't all speak the "King's English". I started a thread about this a while back.

Good for you! You started a thread! Maybe there should a notification for all us when you do so we can be sure to read it before making comments about something YOU already posted.

And rogers is the only tele-comminucation place too right?

 

[Rockslinger]

Good for you! You started a thread! Maybe there should a notification for all us when you do so we can be sure to read it before making comments about something YOU already posted.

Why are you getting your panties all in a knot?

 

[Rockslinger]

You and your straw man fallacies.

Who fucking cares?

Usual Schlong bullshit.:deadhorse:

 

[Rockslinger]

Bell and Telus shares their networks already.

That is fine if it is Bell and Telus do it out of their own free will. It is not fine if the government forces them to share their network with Verizon. Canada is not a banana republic, not yet.

If your respond to this post, please spare us your usual bullshit.

 

[onthebottom]

How is this any different from the American protectionism?
Remember about the big deal made about the North American Free Trade Agreement where it should have meant lower prices for all consumers?

It isn't different at all, and I'd laugh in the face of a US industry that said they need import/investment protection.

OTB

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

Why are you getting your panties all in a knot?

No panties. I am commando. You posted something quite stupid in my mind. I posted back.

Like really???? Is that hard to figure out? You want to be a jerk poster, use sarcasms, imply things, look at only 1 of 3 places..... Don't post stupid things, you won't get stupid replies.

 

[Rockslinger]

No panties. I am commando. You posted something quite stupid in my mind. I posted back.

Like really???? Is that hard to figure out? You want to be a jerk poster, use sarcasms, imply things, look at only 1 of 3 places..... Don't post stupid things, you won't get stupid replies.

I never attacked your posts in the past but many others have. Why are you making an issue out of nothing? Just to be an ass?

What is so stupid about stating many Canadians speak English with an accent and mentioning that I raised this point in a previous thread.

 

[onthebottom]

What is stupid, Rockslinger, is arguing that Canadian Telcos don't outsource to lower cost countries:

Most Canadian telecom operators have call centres abroad. Videotron flows Canadian callers through Egypt, Mobilicity through Nicaragua, Wind Mobile through Egypt and the Philippines, and Bell has thousands of employees in India and the Philippines. Telus operates call centres in El Salvador, Las Vegas and Guatemala, and employs 8,500 Filipinos, mostly to service Canadian customer calls and business-process services.

In recent years, thousands of jobs have been sent offshore, contributing to a major decline in Canadian telecom employment. At about 114,000 people, the telecommunications workforce is down 10 per cent since the early 1990s. Despite growing usage, telecommunications employment accounted for 1.15 per cent of all industrial employment in 1991 and only 0.78 per cent of the workforce in 2009.

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinio...jobs-offshore-hurts-canadian-workers-1.108110

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

What is stupid, Rockslinger, is arguing that Canadian Telcos don't outsource to lower cost countries:

Most Canadian telecom operators have call centres abroad. Videotron flows Canadian callers through Egypt, Mobilicity through Nicaragua, Wind Mobile through Egypt and the Philippines, and Bell has thousands of employees in India and the Philippines. Telus operates call centres in El Salvador, Las Vegas and Guatemala, and employs 8,500 Filipinos, mostly to service Canadian customer calls and business-process services.

In recent years, thousands of jobs have been sent offshore, contributing to a major decline in Canadian telecom employment. At about 114,000 people, the telecommunications workforce is down 10 per cent since the early 1990s. Despite growing usage, telecommunications employment accounted for 1.15 per cent of all industrial employment in 1991 and only 0.78 per cent of the workforce in 2009.

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinio...jobs-offshore-hurts-canadian-workers-1.108110

exactly. But Rogers is the only Tele-communication company in Canada apparently. There is one example of Stupidity.

The above would clearly show the irony in my OP about the companies "trying to protect CDN jobs" when they out source. Thanks.

I never attacked your posts in the past but many others have. Why are you making an issue out of nothing? Just to be an ass?

What is so stupid about stating many Canadians speak English with an accent and mentioning that I raised this point in a previous thread.

OMG - really? I already explained it to you. If you don't get it, not my problem. I am not in the mood for your passive aggressive BS. Sorry. Others may have time to play that game but I don't.

You made a stupid comment that deserved a stupid reply. Period. I explained why I thought so, like WTF more do you want?

 

[SchlongConery]

That is fine if it is Bell and Telus do it out of their own free will. It is not fine if the government forces them to share their network with Verizon. Canada is not a banana republic, not yet.

If your respond to this post, please spare us your usual bullshit.

I will resist.

This is how it works Rocky.

The government has long ago "forced" Bell to sell use of their landline telephone networks to resellers. And to their wireless network. This is because the airwaves/radio frequency spectrum are considered PUBLIC property. So the government grants certain carriers the right to those assetts on the condition that they share the network (at the wholesale cost of providing that service... no free lunch) with competitors who want to provide competitive services. Bell, Rogers, Telus et al make good money on those sales. What pisses them off is that companies like Acanac and TekSavvy and others have lower management and staff overhead in their "last mile" retail operations and can offer lower prices in that division. Bell, Rogers , Telus still make GOOD money selling network bandwidth at wholesale to consumers.

This is not unlike the oil companies whose drilling, refining, wholesale and retail operations are separated. Eve if you don't buy the two chocolate bars at the Petro Canada, they are still making money drilling and refining and wholesaling to the US etc.

I understand this gets a bit too complicated for your simple way of thinking but stick around and learn...

 

[SchlongConery]

exactly. But Rogers is the only Tele-communication company in Canada apparently. There is one example of Stupidity.

The above would clearly show the irony in my OP about the companies "trying to protect CDN jobs" when they out source. Thanks.



OMG - really? I already explained it to you. If you don't get it, not my problem. I am not in the mood for your passive aggressive BS. Sorry. Others may have time to play that game but I don't.

You made a stupid comment that deserved a stupid reply. Period. I explained why I thought so, like WTF more do you want?

He is just too stupid to know he is stupid.

 

[FirstCaveman]

This is not a make work project and it is foolish to duplicate the four networks out there. Those costs would get passed along to the consumer, it is not like Mr. Verizon is going to donate his money to Canada. Besides, there are already complaints of too many cell towers and antennas out there.

And to a large degree, there will be huge investment in infrastructure by the new competitor as the new frequency they are selling requires new transmitters etc.

If Bell and Rogers get this freq they may simply buy it and delay implementation until they amortize the cost of their existing equipment.

Sorry, SC. Not buying it. It's certainly not a make-work project, but why should our government force a company to share it's infrastructure? And there is nothing to say that public frequencies MUST be sold at this time, so just keep them for a better opportunity. As for costs, it's always a delicate balance between costs and what the market will allow. And business history is full of examples of 'deep pockets' companies that bankrupted competition with initial below-market prices, and then abused their customers thereafter.