Verizon vs Canadian Wireless

[Topaz]

The new minister of Industry, James Moore , has a decision to make about allowing US company Verizon into Canada when the top three Canadians wireless companies are against it. The way its seems now, it would be good for Canadians but bad for the Canadian companies. This could be a tough decision for the Tories, because IF the three companies don't get what they want, I would think any support they have from these companies will be gone. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-29/moore-said-to-meet-canada-wireless-ceos-on-verizon-threat.html

[Boges]

I sort of agree with what the head of Rogers has said. Telus was barred from buying Mobilicity because it's "anti-competitive" but a company that's 10 times larger than Rogers will be allowed to buy struggling wireless providers because they aren't from Canada.

Then again the Big 3 have benefitted greatly to get their lines laid with government help so it's no surprise they have a decisive advantage over up and comers.

Verizon will have an uphill climb to beat to compete with the Big 3. They have a huge headstart on any future competitors.

[Michael Hardner]

Canadian communication companies need to be more afraid of competition. Service is terrible and only a challenge from without will improve things IMO.

[GostHacked]

HA, the Verizon 'Can the NSA here me now' ???? Not worried about competition as their close ties to the NSA.

[guyser]

Canadian communication companies need to be more afraid of competition.

While true, in this case the CDN companies are not allowed to compete on the same footing, so rioghtly they should be bitching.

[Michael Hardner]

While true, in this case the CDN companies are not allowed to compete on the same footing, so rioghtly they should be bitching.

How so ?

[Boges]

How so ?

Because an American company that's larger than the Big 3 companies combined can buy one of the smaller companies but none of the Big 3 can.

[Michael Hardner]

Ok. Well, my take on that is that the 3 smaller companies are getting out because (by their own declaration) the big 3 make it impossible for them to make a go of it. The government wanted to challenge the big operators, but the experiment failed so they're trying a new approach.

[guyser]

Ok. Well, my take on that is that the 3 smaller companies are getting out because (by their own declaration) the big 3 make it impossible for them to make a go of it.

That is a separate issue altogether.

As if Verizon wouldnt try the same tactics once they get a foothold?

[Michael Hardner]

That is a separate issue altogether.

As if Verizon wouldnt try the same tactics once they get a foothold?

Perhaps they would. But imagine how great it would be for the consumer.

[Boges]

Perhaps they would. But imagine how great it would be for the consumer.

Well we see from Target and Walmart coming up to Canada that American companies don't necessarily provide the same value they offer Americans.

Wind Mobile offers a great unlimited plan for a good price but they didn't have the coverage so if you leave their zone you get charged roaming.

If Verizion can get the coverage of the Big 3 and offer prices comparable to Wind then they would do great. But would they?

Edited July 30, 2013 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

Well we see from Target and Walmart coming up to Canada that American companies don't necessarily provide the same value they offer Americans.

Wind Mobile offers a great unlimited plan for a good price but they didn't have the coverage so if you leave their zone you get charged roaming.

If Verizion can get the coverage of the Big 3 and offer prices comparable to Wind then they would do great. But would they?

No, of course they can't offer the same deals as stateside. But they challenge our retailers to respond. Loblaws certainly has, in many ways.

Would Verizon offer a better deal ? I don't see why not.

[Boges]

Would Verizon offer a better deal ? I don't see why not.

Well we see with Target that they aren't offering undercutting other retailers like Walmart because they don't have to. Canadians are conditioned to pay more.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, so what you're saying is that economics is wrong. More competition doesn't generally force prices down ?

Added: ...assuming all other things roughly equal ?

[Boges]

Ok, so what you're saying is that economics is wrong. More competition doesn't generally force prices down ?

Added: ...assuming all other things roughly equal ?

If Verizon wants to come here and undercut Rogers et all, God Bless them.

I just wouldn't hold my breath.

[dre]

Ok, so what you're saying is that economics is wrong. More competition doesn't generally force prices down ?

Added: ...assuming all other things roughly equal ?

It might, or it might not, it depends on the business model. It usually depends on consumer choice, and whether a consumer can reasonably decide NOT to own a product... thats getting tough now with cellphones.

Edited July 30, 2013 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

If Verizon wants to come here and undercut Rogers et all, God Bless them.

I just wouldn't hold my breath.

The small operators were offering better deals, but it just wasn't sustainable in an environment where the big players influenced the playing field. This may help that, no ?

[Michael Hardner]

It might, or it might not, it depends on the business model. It usually depends on consumer choice, and whether a consumer can reasonably decide NOT to own a product... thats getting tough now with cellphones.

I use pay-as-you-go. There is always the 'cheapskate' option, I find, which reflects the fact that operating at a bare minimum revenue still affords these #$&^#&s a reasonable amount of profit. But, yes, "no thanks" is indeed an option sometimes.

[Boges]

The small operators were offering better deals, but it just wasn't sustainable in an environment where the big players influenced the playing field. This may help that, no ?

I've been led to believe the reason the smaller carriers aren't doing to well is that they just don't have coverage or signal the big boys do.

For example Wind doesn't offer 4G/LTE. I was tempted to go with Wind but one thing you have to say about a company like Rogers, they do seem to reward loyalty.

If Verizon can achieve the signal strength of Bell and Rogers then I'm sure they will succeed. But that remains to be seen.

[Michael Hardner]

I've been led to believe the reason the smaller carriers aren't doing to well is that they just don't have coverage or signal the big boys do.

Could be. I confess to not being interested enough in this to give rigorous research, however I heard something about the smaller operators withdrawing from a lobbying group because they were overruled by the big operators time after time.

[GostHacked]

The small operators were offering better deals, but it just wasn't sustainable in an environment where the big players influenced the playing field. This may help that, no ?

All the small players are using the same networks the big boys use. The reason is the big boys own the whole network and infrastructure. Part of it is leased to the smaller company.

[Boges]

All the small players are using the same networks the big boys use. The reason is the big boys own the whole network and infrastructure. Part of it is leased to the smaller company.

They would argue they have that right because they invested the capital to build the network. Of course they had help from the Fed.

It's sort of circular argument. No easy answer. We still don't know what Verizon's business model in Canada will be so anything we say on this matter is purely speculative.

[Bryan]

All the small players are using the same networks the big boys use. The reason is the big boys own the whole network and infrastructure. Part of it is leased to the smaller company.

Some smaller carriers own their own piece of the network (MTS and Sasktel for instance). The big guys rent from them.

[Topaz]

There's something wrong with either people who own a cell or the prices the company charges, when the bills are higher than a land phone. I've seen some relatives who have cell phones bills from 200.00 up and if one missing a payment before you know it its up to 1200.00! How can people afford these phones??

[Boges]

There's something wrong with either people who own a cell or the prices the company charges, when the bills are higher than a land phone. I've seen some relatives who have cell phones bills from 200.00 up and if one missing a payment before you know it its up to 1200.00! How can people afford these phones??

$200 for a non-family plan cell phone package is a sucker bill. The person probably doesn't even read their bill or see what they're being charged for.

Smart consumers will know how to keep their bill down and tailor it to their needs. I only pay for 200 daytime minutes because most of my communication is through texting.

You have to play the game with them and know the term "rentention department".