You're just making arguments to dismiss what we all see on the ground. We also don't need you to explain the capital requirements of telecom.
The fact that a large market with big capital requirements like the U.S. has a strong foreign-owned competitor demonstrates an open market for foreign investment. The fact that a small market like Canada does not have foreign investment is prima facie evidence that the U.S. telecom market is more open.
I didn't make an argument that the U.S. has a big foreign competitor organically. I basically said Canada's big three telecoms were not organically established without the help of a closed market.
On the matter of a foreign competitor buying a business or assets, it is an effective way to enter a market. It doesn't preclude organic growth. T-Mobile had 7 million subscribers when Deutsche Bank acquired it. Today T-Mobile has 130 million subscribers.
This is a curious case of whataboutism. The U.S. has direct foreign investment in our telecom sector. Canada does not. Of course, telecom mergers and expansions are regulated in the U.S. like they are everywhere.
What do you mean they did not develop organically?
They are Canadian companies, started by Canadians and established in Canada.
Foreign investment isn't up to Canada. It is up to the investors to evaluate if they want to invest.
However it is true that there are capex and regulatory requirements in both the US and Canada.
Essentially nothing is drastically different in Canada than it is in the US.
Nobody is entitled to the Canadian market.
Canada for its part does not prevent anyone from investing in Canada or buying companies here.
Tim Hortons as an example was bought by Burger King an American corporation.
So I am not making up anything.
You are trying to hold Canada responsible for something Canada isn't responsible for.
Sounds like mental gymnastics to me frankly.