Canadian Cellular: Any carriers that aren't bullshit?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Inspect Your Gadgets > Canadian Cellular: Any carriers that aren't bullshit?

«‹›181 »

lampey: Mar 27, 2012

One of my relatives lives has virgin mobile. In Mississauga at the house calls get dropped all the time. Would reception be different on bell?

# ? Aug 3, 2013 05:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 21:59

Migishu: Oct 22, 2005; I'll eat your fucking eyeballs if you're not careful; Grimey Drawer

Virgin are owned by Bell, so no.

# ? Aug 3, 2013 05:24

Italy's Chicken: Feb 25, 2001; cs is for cheaters

Hey guys, did you know Telus has a blog? Did you know it's written by complete idiots? Literally every point is false: http://blog.telus.com/public-policy/the-gift-of-verizon/

Apparently Verizon will be more expensive, won't build networks in rural communities (unlike the incumbents who got free money to do it), will build a back-door for the NSA, will buy ALL THE SPECTRUM making every other carrier spontaneously break.

... and that's just one of the blog postings. Another ridiculous post claiming Telus invests the most infrastructure of all the OECD countries, forgetting that there is a ton of money given from the provinces and feds to get Telus moving in the first place: http://blog.telus.com/public-policy/scratch-the-surface-and-the-shine-comes-off-critics-mythology/

Telus has taken the Foxnews approach to media relations.

# ? Aug 3, 2013 07:37

less than three: Aug 9, 2007; Fallen Rib

Italy's Chicken posted:

Hey guys, did you know Telus has a blog? Did you know it's written by complete idiots? Literally every point is false: http://blog.telus.com/public-policy/the-gift-of-verizon/

Apparently Verizon will be more expensive, won't build networks in rural communities (unlike the incumbents who got free money to do it), will build a back-door for the NSA, will buy ALL THE SPECTRUM making every other carrier spontaneously break.

... and that's just one of the blog postings. Another ridiculous post claiming Telus invests the most infrastructure of all the OECD countries, forgetting that there is a ton of money given from the provinces and feds to get Telus moving in the first place: http://blog.telus.com/public-policy/scratch-the-surface-and-the-shine-comes-off-critics-mythology/

Telus has taken the Foxnews approach to media relations.

I was going to comment, but the one comment already there does a better smackdown than I'd put the effort in to. Best to leave it there in all its glory.

# ? Aug 3, 2013 10:23

bunnyofdoom: Mar 29, 2008; I've been here the whole time, and you're not my real Dad!

So apparently, posting in this thread causes the ad bar at the top to display the already disproven "Wireless rates in Canada are typically lower than in the U.S." BS (Also, claiming your better than the worst in the world doesn't make you the best, it just makes you second worst)

# ? Aug 3, 2013 13:50

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Canadians - connected like never before. Makes you just want to run out and sign a wireless contract right now.

Also, apparently Canadians are pretty much all fit, attractive people aged 18-40.

# ? Aug 5, 2013 19:53

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

eXXon posted:

Canadians - connected like never before. Makes you just want to run out and sign a wireless contract right now.

Also, apparently Canadians are pretty much all fit, attractive people aged 18-40.

Hahaha I like how they disabled ratings and comments on it. Also drat right I am a fit attractive 18-40 year old.

# ? Aug 5, 2013 19:57

Lobok: Jul 13, 2006; Say Watt?

eXXon posted:

Canadians - connected like never before. Makes you just want to run out and sign a wireless contract right now.

Also, apparently Canadians are pretty much all fit, attractive people aged 18-40.

If ever there was a site that called out to be hacked into oblivion...

# ? Aug 5, 2013 22:05

BGrifter: Mar 16, 2007; Winner of Something Awful PS5 thread's Posting Excellence Award June 2022

Congratulations!

Lobok posted:

If ever there was a site that called out to be hacked into oblivion...

quote:

Dear Mr. Cope,

Amongst your many traits as CEO of Bell Canada Enterprises (BCE), tenacity, enthusiasm for your trade, and perseverance top the list. Conspicuous in its absence from your letter, however, is your sense of irony.

You begin the �unusual step of writing to all Canadians� (Strange, isn�t it, that �Canada�s Top Communication Company� should find it unusual to communicate with its customers?) with a history lesson, ostensibly in the interest of helping us �understand a critical situation� now facing the wireless industry: the potential entrance of an American company into the Canadian market.

You inform us that, since Parliament granted Bell its charter in 1880, Bell has spent 133 years �investing in delivering world-class communications services to Canadians.� An impressive track record!

You must, however, be aware that Bell�s permission to operate in Canada was initially obtained by agents acting in the interest of the (American) National Bell Telephone Company and that, after securing a favourable charter, three top-level executives from National Bell were appointed to Bell Canada�s board of directors (Babe, 1990, pg 68-69). Or how about how American Bell initially owned 50% of your company, only fully divesting its interest 43 years ago, in 1970 (Winseck, 1998, pg 119)?

Bell began its life in Canada as a branch plant of an American company; in a strange twist of fate, it�s now a descendant of National Bell Telephone � Verizon � which is contemplating (re)entering the Canadian market. And they leveraged this relationship to get an early leg up on the competition � using patents owned by its American parent, Bell quickly monopolized the market for Canadian telephone services, a monopoly it used to funnel profits back to the States. (Smythe, 1981, pg 141)

You suggest that �US giants don�t need special help from the Canadian government,� but that�s exactly how Bell got to where it is today!

That�s all ancient history, however, and in the here and now, BCE is a Canadian company who �welcomes any competitor,� so long as they �compete on a level playing field.� Right?

You�re calling on the Federal government to close �loopholes� that are intended to promote competition in your industry � rules that your company has forced the government to create.

Regarding the three �loopholes� you want closed:

1. �Verizon would be able to buy twice as much of Canada�s airwaves as Canadian companies like Bell can in an upcoming auction of wireless spectrum � the airwaves that carry your calls and data.�

According to a recent article in the Financial Post, BCE currently holds license to 19% of Canadian radio frequencies designated for mobile use � that�s if you include the upcoming blocks of 700MHz in the total � or 29% if you don�t. Bell didn�t get most of that spectrum by paying market price, but through a �beauty contest� � the government licensed mobile spectrum to Rogers, Bell, Telus and other regional providers such as MTS and SaskTel for pennies compared to market value.[1] You might call that �existing spectrum holdings previously subsidized by Canadian taxpayers,� something you�ve got in spades but would deny to your competition.

Even in the unlikely event that you don�t win a block of 700MHz in the upcoming auction, you�ll still be in control of 19% of all available mobile spectrum in Canada � more than twice as much as the set-aside provides for new entrants.[2]

The playing field looks pretty tilted from here.

2. �They get to piggyback on the networks of Canadian carriers wherever they don�t want to invest and build their own.�

At least you won�t have to worry about Verizon piggybacking on your network here in rural Manitoba � because you barely have one. Instead you�ve chosen to only cover the most densely populated (and most profitable) areas of the province while ignoring places like Thompson, Churchill and the Whiteshell � a practice that you reserve exclusively for Verizon. Where you do provide service � Ontario, Quebec, Vancouver, etc. (Winnipeg, Brandon, and immediately surrounding areas in MB) � you�re already sharing a network with TELUS. Since 2009, Bell and TELUS have been sharing their national 3G (HSPA) network infrastructure. You�ve needed help providing your services for years, why should we expect Verizon to go it alone?

Rogers also has similar agreements with regional providers such as MTS. In fact, all three national providers are already sharing their networks with their �competitors,� yet you actively campaign to exclude new entrants such as WIND and Verizon from the club. Not my idea of a level playing field.

3. �Verizon can acquire smaller Canadian competitors � but Bell and other Canadian wireless companies can�t even try.�

You note that �With Ottawa�s help, the new companies [WIND, Mobilicity, Public Mobile] have become part of the vigorously competitive Canadian wireless marketplace�. I have to point out that with your help, one of those companies is facing imminent financial insolvency, while the other two are actively courting buyers. Naguib Sawiris, WIND�s original backer, has frequently and publicly lamented his decision to test your waters. The previous contestants, (Clearnet and Microcell) I would add, met a similar fate when they were bought out by TELUS and Rogers in 2000 and 2004, respectively. Are we supposed to believe that TELUS is still competing with Koodo, or Rogers with Fido?

After every challenger contesting your dominance of the wireless market has been bought out or squashed, is it any wonder that the government wants to act to promote real competition?

Mr. Cope, I am Canadian. Like virtually every other Canadian I know, I rely on my mobile phone in my personal life and for my livelihood on a daily basis. The �critical situation� I face comes every month, when I open my wireless bill wondering whether I�ll be able to afford to pay it. Your company, along with Canada�s other major wireless providers, have had 30 years to address this situation. But you�ve failed. Posting huge profits and paying dividends year after year might satisfy your shareholders, but individual Canadians and their families are being hung out to dry. It�s time for a change. Faced with a choice between an American company fighting to gain a foothold in a hostile market or a Canadian one who takes my hard earned money for granted, I�ll pick the lesser of two evils. And if you don�t know which that is by now, I�ll happily send you a copy of my monthly phone bill.

~

[1]According to a report Bell submitted to Industry Canada�s invite-only Wireless Roundtable in 2010, total fees paid by spectrum licensees to IC is $132M per year, your share of which (29%) is $38.28M per year by my estimate. Sounds like a lot, until you consider that you paid nearly that much at auction just to secure AWS spectrum for Toronto alone (Per year cost of winning bid for 10 year license.) It�s fair to say that most of the spectrum you�re holding (and have been for up to 30 years) has cost you significantly less than market value. Why should you have access to public subsidies for spectrum but not your competitors?

[2] This estimate excludes spectrum held by Bell et al for radio and television broadcasting, but includes the BRS spectrum � intended for mobile internet but out of use since early 2012 � currently being hoarded by Inukshuk Wireless, a joint venture between Bell and Rogers. Also, it assumes that Verizon will not have completed acquisition of Wind or other new entrants prior to the auction.

Sources Cited:

Babe, Robert E. Telecommunications in Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 1990.

Smythe, Dallas. Dependency Road: Communications, Capitalism, Consciousness, and Canada. Ablex Publishing, New Jersey. 1982.

Winseck, Dwayne. Reconvergence: A Political Economy of Telecommunications in Canada. Hampton Press, New Jersey. 1998.

# ? Aug 5, 2013 22:18

Skeeter Green: Aug 15, 2001; 24 strings

Dallan Invictus posted:

For the record, I don't oppose Verizon coming in (and frankly I haven't seen anyone, anywhere, outside our carriers that does), I'm just not on board the Great Red Hope train because:

a) in their home market they are as bad if not worse than Our Benevolent Overlords and any reasons they have to change this behaviour will not last,

b) the synergies between VZW's existing American network and any one they could build or use in Canada after buying any of the AWS providers are minimal at best, so offering a better roaming deal than the incumbents will be tricky,

c) the fact that they have the cash to underwrite a massive undercutting of current telecom prices and the necessary infrastructure investments to beat the incumbent carriers is no guarantee that our market is worth spending the amount of cash this would require or that they actually want to do so (Wind's owners also had size and cash, and yet here we are),

d) for all that the government is (according to the incumbents) desperately offering concessions to encourage Verizon to come in and come in properly, I don't trust them to make the right changes from the perspective of actually making competitive entry feasible for people without ten-figure market caps or restricting the soon-to-be Big 4 from loving us (because that would involve actually restraining the Glorious Free Market and we can't have that),

e) I am a massive killjoy.

I oppose Verizon coming in because as lovely as Bell Telus and Rogers are, as far as I can tell, they pay their taxes. Verizon on the other hand is a notorious tax cheat in the US and I see no reason for them to change their habits here. As for point b), the 700 MHz spectrum is exactly what Verizon is building their LTE network on in America, so the upcoming Canadian auction is extremely valuable for them to offer roaming in the future. I agree with the rest of your points, I can't imagine Verizon building up a network and waging a price war against the incumbents in order to offer lower rates (lower ARPU) than they do in America for a market with fewer potential customers than California alone. They most likely want to offer North American roaming to high value business customers and Americans.

I think a lot of the schadenfreude over Verizon's possible entry to our market is misguided. Rogers, Bell and Telus are just fulfilling their obligations to their shareholders, loving over customers in favour of profits is instinct to them. Welcome to capitalism. It's like getting mad at a lion for eating a gazelle. The attitude of "I don't care if it lowers prices, I just want to see the Big Three get hurt!" baffles me. Why not advocate for real (regulatory) solutions instead of getting a boner over corporations getting "hurt"?

# ? Aug 6, 2013 17:21

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

Skeeter Green posted:

I think a lot of the schadenfreude over Verizon's possible entry to our market is misguided. Rogers, Bell and Telus are just fulfilling their obligations to their shareholders, loving over customers in favour of profits is instinct to them. Welcome to capitalism. It's like getting mad at a lion for eating a gazelle. The attitude of "I don't care if it lowers prices, I just want to see the Big Three get hurt!" baffles me. Why not advocate for real (regulatory) solutions instead of getting a boner over corporations getting "hurt"?

Sure, if the lion was a manipulative rear end in a top hat who took advantage of its prey and actively hosed over customers? What a stupid analogy.

# ? Aug 6, 2013 17:24

Skeeter Green: Aug 15, 2001; 24 strings

CLAM DOWN posted:

Sure, if the lion was a manipulative rear end in a top hat who took advantage of its prey and actively hosed over customers? What a stupid analogy.

Do you actually think our incumbent telecoms "actively" gently caress over customers? Secondly, do you really think Verizon is any different?

# ? Aug 6, 2013 17:34

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

Skeeter Green posted:

Do you actually think our incumbent telecoms "actively" gently caress over customers? Secondly, do you really think Verizon is any different?

Yes I absolutely do. And I don't really have an opinion on Verizon as I know nothing about them.

# ? Aug 6, 2013 17:41

Aphrodite: Jun 27, 2006

Skeeter Green posted:

Do you actually think our incumbent telecoms "actively" gently caress over customers? Secondly, do you really think Verizon is any different?

Rogers charges tax to untaxable customers (natives on reserves) and requires monthly calls to remove it, because a percentage of users won't bother.

Bell used to (still might) overcount because not everyone pays attention to their bill.

They extended Dave Nonis.

# ? Aug 6, 2013 17:42

Skeeter Green: Aug 15, 2001; 24 strings

CLAM DOWN posted:

Yes I absolutely do. And I don't really have an opinion on Verizon as I know nothing about them.

This is the problem right here. Canadians don't know a drat thing about Verizon beyond "they exist" and "they have a lot of money" and yet they hear that Verizon may be coming to Canada we're welcoming them with arms wide open, expecting them to ride in on a golden chariot and fix everything with a twinkle in their eye and a wave of their magic wand and the power of Real Competition (because Wind wasn't Real Competition apparently)

# ? Aug 6, 2013 18:15

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

Skeeter Green posted:

This is the problem right here. Canadians don't know a drat thing about Verizon beyond "they exist" and "they have a lot of money" and yet they hear that Verizon may be coming to Canada we're welcoming them with arms wide open, expecting them to ride in on a golden chariot and fix everything with a twinkle in their eye and a wave of their magic wand and the power of Real Competition (because Wind wasn't Real Competition apparently)

I never said that. I don't expect them to ride in and magically fix anything. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't give a poo poo about Verizon either way. That doesn't mean I have to fellate the Big 3 like you're doing, and chalk up their bullshit to "welp, capitalism!".

e: Actually curious here, do you work for one of the incumbents? The only other person I know who talks like you do works for Bell.

# ? Aug 6, 2013 18:18

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Skeeter Green posted:

I oppose Verizon coming in because as lovely as Bell Telus and Rogers are, as far as I can tell, they pay their taxes. Verizon on the other hand is a notorious tax cheat in the US

I know this is a bit removed from this thread's purpose, but I despair at people bleating about "tax cheats" because companies have smart accountants. They're perfectly within the law. You can expect them to pay more than they can get away with not paying - just like us individuals do when we have the chance.

If there's a problem with companies not paying enough tax (and it sure seems like it), then the solution is [conceptually] simple - governments need to close the loopholes that do exist, and people need to exercise their collective influence on government to ensure this happens. If the tax code were simple, and uncomplicated, none of this would be possible, and we'd only ever be arguing about tax rates and brackets.

I"ll stop now.

# ? Aug 6, 2013 18:22

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

CLAM DOWN posted:

I never said that. I don't expect them to ride in and magically fix anything. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't give a poo poo about Verizon either way. That doesn't mean I have to fellate the Big 3 like you're doing, and chalk up their bullshit to "welp, capitalism!".

e: Actually curious here, do you work for one of the incumbents? The only other person I know who talks like you do works for Bell.

The only reason anyone needs to welcome Verizon is that the big-3 are making GBS threads themselves over it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

# ? Aug 6, 2013 18:23

Dallan Invictus: Oct 11, 2007; The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes, look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.

^^^The enemy of your enemy needs to be watched, because it's entirely possible they are also your enemy. Use them against your existing enemy, sure, but don't empower them too much and don't trust them too easily until you know more about them.

Skeeter Green posted:

I oppose Verizon coming in because as lovely as Bell Telus and Rogers are, as far as I can tell, they pay their taxes. Verizon on the other hand is a notorious tax cheat in the US and I see no reason for them to change their habits here. As for point b), the 700 MHz spectrum is exactly what Verizon is building their LTE network on in America, so the upcoming Canadian auction is extremely valuable for them to offer roaming in the future.

It's true that 700 in Canada will be valuable to offer roaming going forward, but the AWS spectrum Wind et al currently hold is useless to VZW as far as currently roaming to/from the States goes, so they could only really offer such deals to that portion of their customer base that uses LTE rather than either of the two mutually incompatible sets of legacy devices in the States and Canada.

It seemed appropriate to call this tricky.

Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Aug 6, 2013

# ? Aug 6, 2013 18:24

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

Dallan Invictus posted:

^^^The enemy of your enemy needs to be watched, because it's entirely possible they are also your enemy. Use them against your existing enemy, sure, but don't empower them too much and don't trust them too easily until you know more about them.

I agree wholeheartedly.

# ? Aug 6, 2013 18:35

bunnyofdoom: Mar 29, 2008; I've been here the whole time, and you're not my real Dad!

Lexicon posted:

I agree wholeheartedly.

This is why I always lose at Risk.

# ? Aug 6, 2013 18:44

Aphrodite: Jun 27, 2006

To be fair, when we're talking about cellphone providers all that really amounts to is not immediately signing up with them.

# ? Aug 6, 2013 18:47

Dallan Invictus: Oct 11, 2007; The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes, look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.

CLAM DOWN posted:

Sure, if the lion was a manipulative rear end in a top hat who took advantage of its prey and actively hosed over customers? What a stupid analogy.

Cats of all sizes actually are manipulative assholes who take advantage of their prey and actively gently caress them over for sport. :eng101:

It is more or less impossible for the telecom industry (most network-based industries, really, but it is particularly the case in telecom) to avoid monopoly/oligopoly without government regulators that are empowered and active. Real Competition won't save you because the infrastructure costs and barriers to entry mean that Real Competition is economically inefficient and, left to their own devices, telecom companies will do exactly what they are doing in Canadian wireless (because they have, largely and deliberately, been left to their own devices - I recommend you read this.)

It literally is "welp, capitalism", and it's not "fellating the Big 3" to point this out.

# ? Aug 6, 2013 18:49

bunnyofdoom: Mar 29, 2008; I've been here the whole time, and you're not my real Dad!

Aphrodite posted:

To be fair, when we're talking about cellphone providers all that really amounts to is not immediately signing up with them.

The only way to win is not to play? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo

# ? Aug 6, 2013 18:50

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

What are the alternatives to allowing Verizon to enter? Let the big 3 gobble up the remaining spectrum and/or buy up Mobilicity/Wind?

I mean, I would love for the federal government to step in, buy up Mobilicity/Wind, claim the remaining spectrum for themselves and set up a nationalized, non-profit, low-cost carrier with nation-wide service, but that is clearly not going to be an option here.

# ? Aug 6, 2013 18:51

Dallan Invictus: Oct 11, 2007; The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes, look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.

I'm not saying there are any realistic alternatives. I'm not even saying Verizon shouldn't enter. Mostly what I'm saying is that we will continue to be hosed either way, all hope is vain, death is certain.

The actual alternatives involve Industry Canada keeping their spectrum set-asides and instituting network-sharing rules that are more favourable to new incumbents (possible), or the CRTC re-regulating wireless services and rates the same way they still do landlines (which would almost certainly be challenged in court given the Cabinet order I linked in my last post), or any of the other regulatory pipe dreams I've ranted endlessly about in this thread but will probably never happen under the present government.

bunnyofdoom posted:

This is why I always lose at Risk.

If you are playing Risk you have already lost.

Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Aug 6, 2013

# ? Aug 6, 2013 19:02

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

Dallan Invictus posted:

I'm not saying there are any realistic alternatives. I'm not even saying Verizon shouldn't enter. Mostly what I'm saying is that we will continue to be hosed either way, all hope is vain, death is certain.

That doesn't mean I have to throw my hands up and stop complaining! I don't have to necessarily accept things the way they are just because it's pure capitalism at work, capitalism is not necessary okay or good.

# ? Aug 6, 2013 19:08

Dallan Invictus: Oct 11, 2007; The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes, look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.

I'm not saying pure capitalism is "okay" or "good", and I'm pretty sure Skeeter isn't either, as much as you'd like to think he's a shill or whatever. What I am saying is that if you are expecting Verizon to behave any better, you will be disappointed - and your spite, while understandable, will not lower your cell-phone bill by a cent.

The solution to Canada's cellular nightmare is in Ottawa, not in some boardroom in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, or New York.

Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Aug 6, 2013

# ? Aug 6, 2013 19:33

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

Dallan Invictus posted:

What I am saying is that if you are expecting Verizon to behave any better, you will be disappointed - and your spite, while understandable, will not lower your cell-phone bill by a cent.

I never said or implied otherwise, and I agree. A lot of Canadian consumers think that though so I understand why you would misunderstand that. I obviously would like to pay less, but I never said Verizon is the solution.

# ? Aug 6, 2013 19:41

Sassafras: Dec 24, 2004; by Athanatos

Sassafras fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Nov 26, 2013

# ? Aug 6, 2013 19:50

BGrifter: Mar 16, 2007; Winner of Something Awful PS5 thread's Posting Excellence Award June 2022

Congratulations!

Really scaring the big three with Verizon is just entertainment while we wait for 2015 and elect a NDP majority government so they can establish LaytonTel bringing reasonably priced cell phone service to the masses. :colbert:

# ? Aug 6, 2013 20:38

quaint bucket: Nov 29, 2007

Excuse me

MulClearNet

# ? Aug 6, 2013 20:46

BGrifter: Mar 16, 2007; Winner of Something Awful PS5 thread's Posting Excellence Award June 2022

Congratulations!

quaint bucket posted:

Excuse me

MulClearNet

I expect a CPC ad within the hour about Judgement Day when MulClearNet goes active and wipes out humanity.

# ? Aug 6, 2013 20:51

Skeeter Green: Aug 15, 2001; 24 strings

Lexicon posted:

I know this is a bit removed from this thread's purpose, but I despair at people bleating about "tax cheats" because companies have smart accountants. They're perfectly within the law. You can expect them to pay more than they can get away with not paying - just like us individuals do when we have the chance.

If there's a problem with companies not paying enough tax (and it sure seems like it), then the solution is [conceptually] simple - governments need to close the loopholes that do exist, and people need to exercise their collective influence on government to ensure this happens. If the tax code were simple, and uncomplicated, none of this would be possible, and we'd only ever be arguing about tax rates and brackets.

I"ll stop now.

You're absolutely right, and this is exactly what I'm saying about the Big Three. They aren't "actively loving over customers" any more than Verizon is a "tax cheat", they are merely using the tools at their disposal to maximize profits like any good company does for their shareholders. This will not be fixed by crossing the magic threshold of four carriers for Real Competition like our government seems to think, and especially not with a company like Verizon.

Full disclosure, I do work for one of the Big Three in a retail store part time while I attend school. Let me assure you, I have little love for my employer or for their "competitors", and I don't much care for pure capitalism or free markets either. I just don't see the sense in being personally offended by their actions. I'd rather see them regulated to poo poo than for Verizon to come in with a sweet deal, pull the same crap, and funnel money down to their tax havens abroad.

Skeeter Green fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Aug 6, 2013

# ? Aug 6, 2013 22:43

Italy's Chicken: Feb 25, 2001; cs is for cheaters

Dallan Invictus posted:

Real Competition won't save you because the infrastructure costs and barriers to entry mean that Real Competition is economically inefficient and, left to their own devices, telecom companies will do exactly what they are doing in Canadian wireless (because they have, largely and deliberately, been left to their own devices - I recommend you read this.)

My interpretation of that legal language is that the CRTC needs to favour no at all while still promoting technological advances. They've already broken that rule by giving new wireless providers first dibs on spectrum.

If I interpreted that document correctly, the CRTC would be perfectly within their right to tell Telus, Rogers and Bell to shut the gently caress up and stop complaining... something that needs to happen.

# ? Aug 7, 2013 03:48

Dallan Invictus: Oct 11, 2007; The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes, look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.

Italy's Chicken posted:

My interpretation of that legal language is that the CRTC needs to favour no at all while still promoting technological advances. They've already broken that rule by giving new wireless providers first dibs on spectrum.

The CRTC doesn't run spectrum auctions, that's the Industry Ministry's job.

edit: As for your interpretation - well, that's more cathartic than concrete (and you may note that the CRTC's latest attempt to tell the wireless corps to "shut up and stop complaining" is waiting for a court date as we speak, so the people who actually get to authoritatively interpret these things may turn out to have a different opinion than you).

The fact of the matter is that the duly elected government of the day wants the telecom industry to be shaped more by market forces than by regulation, and the regulators tend to follow that lead because that's what law and democracy demand. Now, because everybody hates the telecom corps and they see votes in it, the government is trying to find a way out of the mess they've made, but because they're still the market fundamentalists we know and love I expect not to like the way out they find.

Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Aug 7, 2013

# ? Aug 7, 2013 06:31

Nitr0: Aug 17, 2005; IT'S FREE REAL ESTATE

More bullshit from telus.

http://canadaplayfair.com/

# ? Aug 9, 2013 00:01

CLAM DOWN: Feb 13, 2007

It's actually amazing to watch how much of a fit the big 3 are pinching at the very thought of having to compete.

# ? Aug 9, 2013 00:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 21:59

Lexicon: Jul 29, 2003; I had a beer with Stephen Harper once and now I like him.

CLAM DOWN posted:

It's actually amazing to watch how much of a fit the big 3 are pinching at the very thought of having to compete.

I know. Love that Telus even went to the bother of building that site, and has been playing FUD radio commercials incessantly.

As Andrew Coyne remarked on twitter recently - there's no better argument for letting Verizon in than the sheer panicked opposition of the incumbents.

# ? Aug 9, 2013 07:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Inspect Your Gadgets > Canadian Cellular: Any carriers that aren't bullshit?

«‹›181 »