Many other Canadian and American companies also outsource to lower cost jurisdictions if it makes business sense. Is anyone (ok, Schlong and FF) on this Board too stupid to think that Verizon doesn't also outsource to lower cost jurisdictions?
fair competition in Canada... ?
- Thread starter kono
- Start date
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?
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.
Since being nice and polite doesn't work with you, let's try this. They do speak English, it's not their fault you are too stupid to understand what they are saying.
Merging with the U.S. raises a host of other issues, far too many to discuss on this thread. A country and culture is more than just economics (I think). I said this before and I'll say it again, I will gladly pay a bit more to support Canadian owned and managed businesses. It is good for our economy and society.
WOW - are you really this fucked? Seriously?
Again because you are TOOOOOOOO stupid to understand the point.
1. I laughed when I saw, "protecting CDN jobs" jobs part. Why? Because THEY {THE JOBS} ARE OUTSOURCED........
Are you really that dumb? You could not understand that?
2. You said Rogers does not outsource, but they are NOT the only telecom company, are they? Should we list them all for you? You did see where others were outsourced right?
3. IQ has nothing to do with understanding English. It has nothing to do with how smart I am. It has everything to do with the jobs being out sourced to countries where English is not their first language. It is not even about "King's English" it is about pronunciation, and heavy accent, etc but you wanted to be an ass and make stupid comments.
And if the relation to IQ and understanding English was an issue, you would not be even allowed here, because clearly you don't understand when it is plain text English in your face.
4. You were never being nice. Not even in your first post. Not even close. You were as I said. You wanted to be a jerk poster, use sarcasms, imply things, look at only 1 of 3 places, etc
A jerk by posting passive/aggressively. Using sarcasms as an sly but lame attempt at insult/jab. Implying is some way that I was being rude and prejudiced to fellow CDNs in our mutli-cultural country. Looking at only 1 telecom company over the others and focusing on that to show me in a negative/incorrect way. Which we know is BS. So take your stupidity and shove it.
Now run along little boy..... play with in the sand box with others. You are beneath my level.
Well there's your problem right there. 'Tis the Queen's fecking English. We ain't had no king in one feck of a long time.
I knew that, just having a bit of fun by saying the "King's" English and taking a gentle stab at that poster who said: "Because I always seem to have to ask for someone in Canada who actually speaks English when I call."
I call Bell and Rogers (I don't have a relationship with Telus) fairly often and never had trouble with their English. I know the Bell billing department is in Manila, Philippines and don't have any problems with their English. The Rogers call centres are in Canada and sometimes I get an agent who speaks with a French accent or an ethnic accent and again no problem (just requires a bit of effort).
Anyhow, back to the jobs issue. Two questions:
1) How many NEW jobs will Verizon create in Canada?
2) Where will the Verizon call centre be located in Canada?
Apeshit alert! :deadhorse:WOW - are you really this fucked? Seriously?
Again because you are TOOOOOOOO stupid to understand the point.
1. I laughed when I saw, "protecting CDN jobs" jobs part. Why? Because THEY {THE JOBS} ARE OUTSOURCED........
Are you really that dumb? You could not understand that?
2. You said Rogers does not outsource, but they are NOT the only telecom company, are they? Should we list them all for you? You did see where others were outsourced right?
3. IQ has nothing to do with understanding English. It has nothing to do with how smart I am. It has everything to do with the jobs being out sourced to countries where English is not their first language. It is not even about "King's English" it is about pronunciation, and heavy accent, etc but you wanted to be an ass and make stupid comments.
And if the relation to IQ and understanding English was an issue, you would not be even allowed here, because clearly you don't understand when it is plain text English in your face.
4. You were never being nice. Not even in your first post. Not even close. You were as I said. You wanted to be a jerk poster, use sarcasms, imply things, look at only 1 of 3 places, etc
A jerk by posting passive/aggressively. Using sarcasms as an sly but lame attempt at insult/jab. Implying is some way that I was being rude and prejudiced to fellow CDNs in our mutli-cultural country. Looking at only 1 telecom company over the others and focusing on that to show me in a negative/incorrect way. Which we know is BS. So take your stupidity and shove it.
Now run along little boy..... play with in the sand box with others. You are beneath my level.
No - telling the truth alert. LOL
You just needed your whoppin done in break down format since you are not intelligent enough to understand it.
Go stalk someone else now. You started this with me, trying to attack me, insult me, and I dish it back. When you throw shit, don't throw it towards the fan. That is how you get it back, all over your face.
and there is the TRUTH!!!!!
YOU went for the jab at me first for no reason. I threw is back. Done!
To repeat......fuck Rogers and Bell. They have fucked Canadians with lousy and overpriced service for years. I have zero sympathy for their position and have yet to speak to anyone outside of Terb who does. Most laugh at their lobbying attempt. Two of the most hated companies in Canada.
Bullshit! :deadhorse:
You took a big jab at all Canadians and foreigners who do not speak perfect English. I called you on that by saying not everybody speaks English without an accent.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324522504579003100602689622.html
[h=1]Not All Telecom 'Little Guys' Are So Small[/h][h=2]A spectrum auction that favors 'new entrants' even if they are titans.[/h]
-
MORE IN OPINION »
Consider Canada's official determination that there should be four national wireless carriers where there are now only three. To achieve that goal, Ottawa has cooked up the telecom version of affirmative action for "new entrants," small players who otherwise could never be expected to compete against Canada's big-three: Telus, Rogers Communications and BCE.
Enlarge Image
Reuters
The little Davids will have special bidding privileges at the January auction of some of the highly valuable 700 megahertz spectrum. The rules say "new entrants" that do not have more than 10% of market share by revenue will be allowed to bid on two of the four "prime" blocks. The big three Goliaths will be allowed to bid on only one of the prime blocks. The incumbents are also mandated to share their networks at market prices with the "new entrant" winner of this spectrum in areas where it has not built its own infrastructure.
A tilted playing field was never going to sit well with the incumbents. But when word got out that the "new entrant" candidate likely to get a leg-up in order to become the fourth national wireless carrier is New Jersey-based Verizon Wireless, the big three—normally fierce competitors—joined together to launch a vigorous opposition. (Technically Verizon qualifies as a little guy because it has no market share at all in Canada. Talk about a loophole.)
Verizon would neither confirm nor deny to me its interest in the Canadian market. But in July its CFO, Fran Shammo, told a Goldman Sachs analyst that "about 70% of [the Canadian] population is between Toronto and Quebec. That's adjacent to the Verizon Wireless properties" on the U.S. side of the border. The spectrum to be offered in the auction, Mr. Shammo explained, is the mirror image of "what we launched here in the United States on the 700 megahertz contiguous footprint. So we're looking . . ."
This horrifies Canada's big three and in a July 9 letter to Canadian Prime MinisterStephen Harper, the boards of directors of all three companies expressed "grave concerns" about the rules of the auction. They also warned that once Verizon got its hands on the Canadian spectrum, the company would "simply piggyback on the networks of others."
They have a point, though it has nothing to do with their beef that Verizon is a foreign carrier and that the U.S. does not provide reciprocal privileges to Canadian companies.
The real danger presented by central planners out to conjure up a fourth wireless competitor—domestic or foreign—is the risk to the country's investment profile. As the carriers' letter explained, the lopsided auction and the forced sharing of network infrastructure is likely to end up "reducing the collective incentive to deploy capital." That can't be good for consumers even if, in the short run, Verizon is able to disrupt the status quo.
Competition is good for consumers and producers, and better service at lower prices can often be wrung out of the market by new entrants. That seems to be what the Harper government was after in March 2012, when it announced that foreign companies would be allowed to buy Canadian carriers that have no more than 10% of market share by revenue. The government also said there would be no limit on how large those new owners can grow in the Canadian market, providing that they grow "organically" and not by acquisition.
This is progress in a market that has been largely closed to foreign competitors and it is what would allow Verizon to consider entering Canada, either through the acquisition of a small carrier or on its own. Canada's big three insist they are ready to compete head-to-head with the U.S. giant—but only on equal terms. If the Harper government really wants to drive down prices, why not just fling open the market and let the brawling begin?
Let's remember too that modern technology makes most antitrust arguments obsolete. As my Journal colleague Holman Jenkins pointed out in his Dec. 7, 2011, Business World column, Canadian cable operator Shaw Communications decided to pursue the wireless business in an unconventional manner by dotting the urban landscape with Wi-Fi. "We can build extensive Wi-Fi coverage at a substantially lower cost relative to a traditional wireless network and still provide our customers with an excellent broadband wireless experience," the company said.
The bottom line is that while politicians are thinking hard about how to make the wireless market look just right today, the way in which a phone call can be delivered is continually evolving. Verizon Wireless may grab a lot of low-hanging fruit in Canada. But what will matter most to cellphone users, and more broadly to Canadian progress and living standards, is secure property rights and equality under the law for innovators and investors. Who is going to risk capital in Canada when industry leaders who run too far ahead of the pack in somebody's estimation keep getting reined in by the political class?
Write to O'Grady@wsj.com.
[h=1]Not All Telecom 'Little Guys' Are So Small[/h][h=2]A spectrum auction that favors 'new entrants' even if they are titans.[/h]
- By
[*=left]MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
-
MORE IN OPINION »
Any time government decides that it knows the optimal number of competitors in a market, investors had better duck. Regulators are about to start swinging.Consider Canada's official determination that there should be four national wireless carriers where there are now only three. To achieve that goal, Ottawa has cooked up the telecom version of affirmative action for "new entrants," small players who otherwise could never be expected to compete against Canada's big-three: Telus, Rogers Communications and BCE.
Enlarge Image
Reuters
The little Davids will have special bidding privileges at the January auction of some of the highly valuable 700 megahertz spectrum. The rules say "new entrants" that do not have more than 10% of market share by revenue will be allowed to bid on two of the four "prime" blocks. The big three Goliaths will be allowed to bid on only one of the prime blocks. The incumbents are also mandated to share their networks at market prices with the "new entrant" winner of this spectrum in areas where it has not built its own infrastructure.
A tilted playing field was never going to sit well with the incumbents. But when word got out that the "new entrant" candidate likely to get a leg-up in order to become the fourth national wireless carrier is New Jersey-based Verizon Wireless, the big three—normally fierce competitors—joined together to launch a vigorous opposition. (Technically Verizon qualifies as a little guy because it has no market share at all in Canada. Talk about a loophole.)
Verizon would neither confirm nor deny to me its interest in the Canadian market. But in July its CFO, Fran Shammo, told a Goldman Sachs analyst that "about 70% of [the Canadian] population is between Toronto and Quebec. That's adjacent to the Verizon Wireless properties" on the U.S. side of the border. The spectrum to be offered in the auction, Mr. Shammo explained, is the mirror image of "what we launched here in the United States on the 700 megahertz contiguous footprint. So we're looking . . ."
This horrifies Canada's big three and in a July 9 letter to Canadian Prime MinisterStephen Harper, the boards of directors of all three companies expressed "grave concerns" about the rules of the auction. They also warned that once Verizon got its hands on the Canadian spectrum, the company would "simply piggyback on the networks of others."
They have a point, though it has nothing to do with their beef that Verizon is a foreign carrier and that the U.S. does not provide reciprocal privileges to Canadian companies.
The real danger presented by central planners out to conjure up a fourth wireless competitor—domestic or foreign—is the risk to the country's investment profile. As the carriers' letter explained, the lopsided auction and the forced sharing of network infrastructure is likely to end up "reducing the collective incentive to deploy capital." That can't be good for consumers even if, in the short run, Verizon is able to disrupt the status quo.
Competition is good for consumers and producers, and better service at lower prices can often be wrung out of the market by new entrants. That seems to be what the Harper government was after in March 2012, when it announced that foreign companies would be allowed to buy Canadian carriers that have no more than 10% of market share by revenue. The government also said there would be no limit on how large those new owners can grow in the Canadian market, providing that they grow "organically" and not by acquisition.
This is progress in a market that has been largely closed to foreign competitors and it is what would allow Verizon to consider entering Canada, either through the acquisition of a small carrier or on its own. Canada's big three insist they are ready to compete head-to-head with the U.S. giant—but only on equal terms. If the Harper government really wants to drive down prices, why not just fling open the market and let the brawling begin?
Let's remember too that modern technology makes most antitrust arguments obsolete. As my Journal colleague Holman Jenkins pointed out in his Dec. 7, 2011, Business World column, Canadian cable operator Shaw Communications decided to pursue the wireless business in an unconventional manner by dotting the urban landscape with Wi-Fi. "We can build extensive Wi-Fi coverage at a substantially lower cost relative to a traditional wireless network and still provide our customers with an excellent broadband wireless experience," the company said.
The bottom line is that while politicians are thinking hard about how to make the wireless market look just right today, the way in which a phone call can be delivered is continually evolving. Verizon Wireless may grab a lot of low-hanging fruit in Canada. But what will matter most to cellphone users, and more broadly to Canadian progress and living standards, is secure property rights and equality under the law for innovators and investors. Who is going to risk capital in Canada when industry leaders who run too far ahead of the pack in somebody's estimation keep getting reined in by the political class?
Write to O'Grady@wsj.com.
See! I knew it. That is what you thought and was far from the case. I took a jab at the BS the telecom was trying to imply. I don't like lies and that is what they are doing.
YOU then decided to throw shit and play it off as "just a comment, why so mad?" in some passive/aggressive manner. Then you stalk me to other posts to continue on trying to insult me..... I did NOTHING to you and you started this. I am now ending it.
Shitslinger can throw it but can't take it back. Nice! LMAO! Typical internet tough guy..... all bravado and nothing to back it.
Thankfully we can all see it for ourselves. Thanks for proving my point.
More FF bullshit.:deadhorse:
Hope my English is good enough for you. Or, will you ask for someone who speaks English?
Are you still asking for someone who speaks English when you call Telus, Rogers and Bell?
Are you still slinging shit?
You were at least comical, I wrote you 2 poems! LOL :wink:
One has to be careful with FF because a lot of people here say she got members banned and abuses her blue status when she is blue. Just check her previous posts.
