What do you propose as an alternative to price controls in Canadian wireless?
Auto insurance has plenty of competition here in the Greater Toronto Area. And the auto insurance rates here are among the most expensive in North America. So competition does not necessarily mean lower prices. Meanwhile in Manitoba where auto insurance is public, the premiums are much lower.
Liberals often do more harm than good with the regulations they impose. But this idea that the invisible hand of the free market always leads to the greater good is like a religion in of itself. The invisible hand of the free market after all leads to conservatives with unPC views getting fired from their jobs when they get doxxed by leftists. Private capital can be tyrannical just like government can.
Radio spectrum is a finite resource. Rogers, Bell and Telus own the lion's share of the radio spectrum in this country. They will never sell some of their radio spectrum to outsiders because the profit they can make from utilizing that radio spectrum is more than if they just sell that radio spectrum. And they all collude with each other.
Your desire for price controls rests on the assumption that prices are too high to begin with. That is not the case, and imposing price controls would cause higher prices further down the track by limiting investment in infrastructure and dissuading foreign competitors.
Canada's wireless prices are amongst the highest in the developed world. Have you seen how expensive auto insurance premiums are in the Greater Toronto Area relative to the rest of North America even with all the competition that does exist? Belair, Allstate, State Farm, Desjardins, etc. There is nothing stopping private entities from making back room deals where they all agree to set prices within the same range.
Also foreign competitors can't enter the Canadian wireless market unless Rogers, Bell, Telus, Shaw, etc. agree to sell their radio spectrum to them. And why would they? They make a killing off utilizing the radio spectrum to sell wireless service to Canadians at the prices they are now.
WIND Mobile, Mobilicity and Public Mobile's entry into the cellular market was a failure because the radio spectrum up for grabs in the radio spectrum auction was of inferior quality to the radio spectrum that Rogers, Bell and Telus had already owned. As a result, the service quality of WIND Mobile and Mobilicity's network was ass. And consumers didn't want to pay less for shit quality service. What's the point of having cheap cell service if the person on the other end can't even hear what you're saying or vice versa? And Public Mobile was running on an outdated CDMA network because the spectrum they bought was of very poor quality. I haven't used WIND's network in 5 years so maybe it has improved since then. But the last time I used WIND and Mobilicity, the reception was ass and the MMS was unreliable.
There is literally no way to compete with Rogers, Bell and Telus unless competitors have the ability to purchase quality radio spectrum or you could rent that spectrum from Rogers, Bell and Telus at an affordable rate (MVNOs). And Rogers, Bell and Telus is not going to sell a portion of their spectrum because it's a gold mine for them. And they're not going to rent out spectrum for cheap unless forced to by the government.
I am not sure whether you read the article, but it explains that perception.
You have a peculiar assertion of price collusion. Unless you have clear evidence, that counts for little. The fact prices are relatively consistent could well suggest they are in tight competition.
If you believe the root cause of alleged monopoly/oligopoly pricing is tight control of the radio spectrum, then there needs to be an examination of that ownership and whether it was properly divvied out. Getting retard government officials to set prices is a fool's errand.
As soon as someone mentions "geography" or "population density" as a cause of our extremely high wireless service prices, you can be 100% certain that person is either a retard or a shill. In either case, they aren't someone to be listened to. Here's why.
First, in specific regard to this article, they flat out lie about the area of landmass. They say it is 3.8 million square miles. It isn't. It's 3.5 million square miles. May not seem like a huge difference, but that's an inflation of nearly 10% right out of the gate showing they're either idiots who can't do math or straight up liars.
Second, total land area is entirely fucking irrelevant to the cost of wireless service. All that is relevant is the area covered by the wireless service. If I ask you to paint a 10'x10' wall on house A and someone else to paint the exact same 10'x10' wall on house B, does it make any fucking sense for the person painting house B to charge double what the person painting house A is charging because overall house A is larger? No, it obviously fucking doesn't. All that matters is the size of the wall being painted, or in the case of wireless service, the area of land having service provided and NOT the overall land area of the entire country. Go head on up to Axel Heiberg Island and see what type of reception you get from Bell.
Third, if you're not a retard and you actually evaluate the area the wireless services cover, you see the actual facts of how fucked up the ass we are on prices. Over 60% of Canadians live in a city with a population over 100,000. Compare that to Americans where less than 30% of Americans live in a city with a population over 100,000. Or look at the actual service coverage area vs land area. In Canada's most populace province, Ontario, only 23% of land area has wireless coverage. Look at NWT and it's only 3.5% of the land area that has service.
So shut the fuck up about "population density" and acting like Canadians are spread out evenly across the entire area of the country and that service providers provide coverage to that 3.5 (not 3.8) million square miles of land area. I hope someone punches you in your fucking mouth if you ever say this retarded shit out loud.
What do you propose as an alternative to price controls in Canadian wireless?
Auto insurance has plenty of competition here in the Greater Toronto Area. And the auto insurance rates here are among the most expensive in North America. So competition does not necessarily mean lower prices. Meanwhile in Manitoba where auto insurance is public, the premiums are much lower.
Liberals often do more harm than good with the regulations they impose. But this idea that the invisible hand of the free market always leads to the greater good is like a religion in of itself. The invisible hand of the free market after all leads to conservatives with unPC views getting fired from their jobs when they get doxxed by leftists. Private capital can be tyrannical just like government can.
Radio spectrum is a finite resource. Rogers, Bell and Telus own the lion's share of the radio spectrum in this country. They will never sell some of their radio spectrum to outsiders because the profit they can make from utilizing that radio spectrum is more than if they just sell that radio spectrum. And they all collude with each other.
Your desire for price controls rests on the assumption that prices are too high to begin with. That is not the case, and imposing price controls would cause higher prices further down the track by limiting investment in infrastructure and dissuading foreign competitors.
Canada's wireless prices are amongst the highest in the developed world. Have you seen how expensive auto insurance premiums are in the Greater Toronto Area relative to the rest of North America even with all the competition that does exist? Belair, Allstate, State Farm, Desjardins, etc. There is nothing stopping private entities from making back room deals where they all agree to set prices within the same range.
Also foreign competitors can't enter the Canadian wireless market unless Rogers, Bell, Telus, Shaw, etc. agree to sell their radio spectrum to them. And why would they? They make a killing off utilizing the radio spectrum to sell wireless service to Canadians at the prices they are now.
WIND Mobile, Mobilicity and Public Mobile's entry into the cellular market was a failure because the radio spectrum up for grabs in the radio spectrum auction was of inferior quality to the radio spectrum that Rogers, Bell and Telus had already owned. As a result, the service quality of WIND Mobile and Mobilicity's network was ass. And consumers didn't want to pay less for shit quality service. What's the point of having cheap cell service if the person on the other end can't even hear what you're saying or vice versa? And Public Mobile was running on an outdated CDMA network because the spectrum they bought was of very poor quality. I haven't used WIND's network in 5 years so maybe it has improved since then. But the last time I used WIND and Mobilicity, the reception was ass and the MMS was unreliable.
There is literally no way to compete with Rogers, Bell and Telus unless competitors have the ability to purchase quality radio spectrum or you could rent that spectrum from Rogers, Bell and Telus at an affordable rate (MVNOs). And Rogers, Bell and Telus is not going to sell a portion of their spectrum because it's a gold mine for them. And they're not going to rent out spectrum for cheap unless forced to by the government.
I am not sure whether you read the article, but it explains that perception.
You have a peculiar assertion of price collusion. Unless you have clear evidence, that counts for little. The fact prices are relatively consistent could well suggest they are in tight competition.
If you believe the root cause of alleged monopoly/oligopoly pricing is tight control of the radio spectrum, then there needs to be an examination of that ownership and whether it was properly divvied out. Getting retard government officials to set prices is a fool's errand.
As soon as someone mentions "geography" or "population density" as a cause of our extremely high wireless service prices, you can be 100% certain that person is either a retard or a shill. In either case, they aren't someone to be listened to. Here's why.
First, in specific regard to this article, they flat out lie about the area of landmass. They say it is 3.8 million square miles. It isn't. It's 3.5 million square miles. May not seem like a huge difference, but that's an inflation of nearly 10% right out of the gate showing they're either idiots who can't do math or straight up liars. Second, total land area is entirely fucking irrelevant to the cost of wireless service. All that is relevant is the area covered by the wireless service. If I ask you to paint a 10'x10' wall on house A and someone else to paint the exact same 10'x10' wall on house B, does it make any fucking sense for the person painting house B to charge double what the person painting house A is charging because overall house A is larger? No, it obviously fucking doesn't. All that matters is the size of the wall being painted, or in the case of wireless service, the area of land having service provided and NOT the overall land area of the entire country. Go head on up to Axel Heiberg Island and see what type of reception you get from Bell. Third, if you're not a retard and you actually evaluate the area the wireless services cover, you see the actual facts of how fucked up the ass we are on prices. Over 60% of Canadians live in a city with a population over 100,000. Compare that to Americans where less than 30% of Americans live in a city with a population over 100,000. Or look at the actual service coverage area vs land area. In Canada's most populace province, Ontario, only 23% of land area has wireless coverage. Look at NWT and it's only 3.5% of the land area that has service. So shut the fuck up about "population density" and acting like Canadians are spread out evenly across the entire area of the country and that service providers provide coverage to that 3.5 (not 3.8) million square miles of land area. I hope someone punches you in your fucking mouth if you ever say this retarded shit out loud.