Should Canada's cellular network be nationalized?

[Smallc]

Sask has a crown corporation as per your last post.

Thats lte in dauphin, brandon, swan, yorkton, pa, etc the rural areas are iffy as the population isnt there.

If you want to see something interesting, go to Rogers and select Manitoba. A 6GB, unlimited Canada wide plan is $60. In any other province but Sk, a lesser plan (5GB) is $105...

I forgot about Sasktel to be honest.

My point is, Manitoba, if you look at the map, has really good LTE coverage.

[Smallc]

By that logic, service in Saskatchewan should be crap compared to the rest of the country. Living near the AB-SK border, I can tell you that simply isn't the case.

Alberta has cell service that most of us would envy in terms of coverage. Prices in Saskatchewan are far better.

[blueblood]

If you want to see something interesting, go to Rogers and select Manitoba. A 6GB, unlimited Canada wide plan is $60. In any other province but Sk, a lesser plan (5GB) is $105...

I forgot about Sasktel to be honest.

My point is, Manitoba, if you look at the map, has really good LTE coverage.

The inability to get highspeed makes the cell phone bill pricey...

[Bryan]

MTS' coverage in Manitoba is really bad. Unlimited data sounds great, except when you can't actually use it most of the time.

[dre]

We definitely need to do something.

It would probably be a good idea to nationalize the towers and transmission lines, and then sell bandwidth to any provider that wants to compete. They could be charged fees that would pay for maintenance and upgrades.

Definitely what we have now is a joke. We are the telecommunications laughing stock of the whole planet.

[Rupert S. Lander]

I'm not sure about the idea of nationalizing the existing network, but perhaps there is a role for government in expanding coverage in remote areas where low populations make cell service commercially unprofitable. They could set up towers in remote areas and allow the commercial carriers to use them.

-k

The same rationale could be used to argue that the most heavily used roads and highways in Canada should all be sold to the private sector, leaving the government to maintain roads only in sparsely populated areas.

The problem is once you start this sort of project the industry is going to stop investing private sector dollars in infrastructure. They'll step back and expect the government to shoulder the burden for them. "Partial nationalization" will not work - either go all the way, or forget the whole idea.

[Smallc]

The inability to get highspeed makes the cell phone bill pricey...

Yeah but I literally live nowhere

[Smallc]

MTS' coverage in Manitoba is really bad. Unlimited data sounds great, except when you can't actually use it most of the time.

I haven't really noticed any different since switching.

[Bryan]

I haven't really noticed any different since switching.

I can't get a signal most places that I go -- right in Winnipeg.

[Smallc]

I can't get a signal most places that I go -- right in Winnipeg.

Other than the odd basement I've honestly rarely had that issue.

[TimG]

But what would those foreign firms have to offer? I think the usa has a few large players and they do a good job in getting the infrastructure across

They build infrastruture in places where the market is large enough to return a profit. Most of Canada does not have the density of major US centers. You also need to watch out for the 'grass is greener on the other side of the fence' illusion. Americans complain a lot about their cell phone and cable providers. Letting American providers provide our cell services would not improve the experience for users but it would mean the corporate taxes on profits would go to the American government instead of the Canadian government. Edited April 10, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

We definitely need to do something.

Why?

It would probably be a good idea to nationalize the towers and transmission lines, and then sell bandwidth to any provider that wants to compete. They could be charged fees that would pay for maintenance and upgrades.

Without competition you kill any incentive to upgrade technology. You would also ensure that any new tech that rendered the government monopoly obsolete would be blocked because governments would want to protect their cash cow.

We are the telecommunications laughing stock of the whole planet.

Based on what? Comparisons with countries which have huge population densities?

[Bryan]

Other than the odd basement I've honestly rarely had that issue.

The city has a lot of dead spots. It also seems like Michael Faraday must have been the architect for most of the buildings I need to go inside of.

[Wilber]

As long as we are using line of sight systems Canada will always have coverage problems unless someone is willing to put a lot of money into infrastructure that will very unprofitable or customers are willing to pay a whole lot for the service.

This winter we stayed an hour east of LA for three months and I found the cell coverage no better and the data speed much slower than an hour east of Vancouver. Next year I think I won't bother with a US data plan and just use wifi when and where I can get it.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

... Americans complain a lot about their cell phone and cable providers. Letting American providers provide our cell services would not improve the experience for users but it would mean the corporate taxes on profits would go to the American government instead of the Canadian government.

True...but I have yet to meet an American who wants to nationalize it all or add Canadian providers to the mix.

[Rupert S. Lander]

Without competition you kill any incentive to upgrade technology. You would also ensure that any new tech that rendered the government monopoly obsolete would be blocked because governments would want to protect their cash cow.

You seem to be suggesting that once the government owns the network infrastructure they'd have no incentive to maintain and upgrade it. I disagree. That sort of logic would also imply that the government has no incentive to maintain and improve roads and transit systems. Whereas clearly they have to maintain some respectable level of service, otherwise they risk getting voted out of office. The same principle would apply to a nationalized cell network. If the government were seen to be putting a lacklustre effort into maintaining and improving wireless service once it was clearly their responsibility to do so, voters would hold them to account. It's not a perfect system by any means, but I would argue that it is a better arrangement than what we have now.

I would also argue that governments in Canada have increasingly been inclined to either acquiesce to the consequences of technological development or work to mitigate the "damage" - for example, they didn't just outright ban satellite radio as a knee-jerk response to protect Canadian content on terrestrial radio. So whenever the next great technological advancement that renders cell towers obsolete comes along, I'm reasonably confident whatever government is in power will quickly see the futility of trying to stop it at the border.

[Wilber]

If taxpayers are willing to foot the bill, government building towers and leasing them to providers for enough to hopefully cover their maintenance might be one approach. That way, when the providers upgraded their equipment, the government would have to follow suit or have its become obsolete.

[TimG]

You seem to be suggesting that once the government owns the network infrastructure they'd have no incentive to maintain and upgrade it.

No monopoly protected from competition has any incentive to invest to improve the technology since their captive customers have no choice but to accept whatever the offer. This tendency is magnified for governments where protecting union jobs and/or regionally distribute pork is higher priority than providing better service.

That sort of logic would also imply that the government has no incentive to maintain and improve roads and transit systems.

Governments outsource the construction of roads and highways to private firms who rely on improvements in technology to improve their bids and ensure they get the work. That said, getting funding for a new rail line or bridge in this country is almost impossible which tends to support my argument that governments would be unable to invest in improvements to the telecommunication infrastructure.

otherwise they risk getting voted out of office.

You have a naive view of how the voting process works. 2 out of the 3 parties in this country are lap dogs for public sector unions which would ensure that protection of these union jobs will be job one. Better service to the public would be a minor concern. Second, many issues affect a person's vote and it unlikely dissatisfaction with the cell network would trump other issues which people care about.

The best way to ensure accountability is to ensure people can take their money and go elsewhere. That requirement needs competition between private firms investing private capital.

Edited April 10, 2016 by TimG

[Rupert S. Lander]

No monopoly protected from competition has any incentive to invest to improve the technology since their captive customers have no choice but to accept whatever the offer. This tendency is magnified for governments where protecting union jobs and/or regionally distribute pork is higher priority than providing better service.

Governments outsource the construction of roads and highways to private firms who rely on improvements in technology to improve their bids and ensure they get the work. That said, getting funding for a new rail line or bridge in this country is almost impossible which tends to support my argument that governments would be unable to invest in improvements to the telecommunication infrastructure.

You have a naive view of how the voting process works. 2 out of the 3 parties in this country are lap dogs for public sector unions which would ensure that protection of these union jobs will be job one. Better service to the public would be a minor concern. Second, many issues affect a person's vote and it unlikely dissatisfaction with the cell network would trump other issues which people care about.

The best way to ensure accountability is to ensure people can take their money and go elsewhere. That requirement needs competition between private firms investing private capital.

If governments are willing to outsource construction and maintenance of roads then why would they not outsource construction and maintenance of cell towers? To be clear, I'm only arguing for the nationalization of ownership of the towers, not the firms that build and maintain them. I do recognize the probability that unions would start angling to put this work in the public sector. But I also see that the private sector is thriving in many parts of the country when it comes to things like road maintenance, so I see no reason why it wouldn't continue to have a role to play in maintaining the cellular network. Combine that with having the private sector continue to provide service directly to consumers, and we could go a long way to ensuring a considerable level of accountability from any Crown Corporation managing a cell network.

I also recognize that the quality of cell service is only one of many issues that would come into play during an election campaign, but I think it would play a bigger role than you might consider possible, especially with younger voters.

You seem to think that the best way for me to hold cell providers accountable is to just take my business elsewhere - I'd like to think it ought to be that simple but I would respectfully submit that I've done enough laps to conclude that's no longer the answer.

[TimG]

If governments are willing to outsource construction and maintenance of roads then why would they not outsource construction and maintenance of cell towers?

The problem is when does the government decide that it is 'necessary' to spend the money on roads and other infrastructure. Residents of Quebec will attest that governments are more than willing to let even this basic infrastructure fall into disrepair if politicians are focused on other priorities. The general problem getting rail, bridges or military equipment built in this country demonstrates how large outlays (such as a network upgrade) are difficult and will be delayed to last possible moment (if they happen at all).

To be clear, I'm only arguing for the nationalization of ownership of the towers

The cellular business is only as good as the company that pays for the towers to built and maintained. If it is a government monopoly the service will quickly degrade due to lack of investment.

You seem to think that the best way for me to hold cell providers accountable is to just take my business elsewhere.

Its the only option on the table and it is the option that created the explosion of wireless services that we enjoy now. There are no other choices that would achieve the stated goal. Seems to me you just want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Edited April 11, 2016 by TimG

[nerve]

Wow, I was surprised to see such overt national socialism on mapleleaf web.

No of course not, the Canadian government has no moral authority to nationalize anything but the resource sector.

They do control the frequencies though, so technically can legally limit access and use to cellular frequencies.

None the less if there was any way way forward they should make their own cellular network if they want one.

What they do need to do though is stop requiring telephone numbers and mailing addresses to do business with government agencies.

Phones arn't needed, much like the internet isn't needed. There is too much dependence on technology by government.

It needs to downsize and simplify processes. It is just too big.

[eyeball]

Cellphones and Internet, as well as banking, utilities, and insurance.

Pharma.

[eyeball]

Wow, I was surprised to see such overt national socialism on mapleleaf web.

No of course not, the Canadian government has no moral authority to nationalize anything but the resource sector.

They do control the frequencies though, so technically can legally limit access and use to cellular frequencies.

None the less if there was any way way forward they should make their own cellular network if they want one.

What they do need to do though is stop requiring telephone numbers and mailing addresses to do business with government agencies.

Phones arn't needed, much like the internet isn't needed. There is too much dependence on technology by government.

It needs to downsize and simplify processes. It is just too big.

Clearly we'd need to do something fairly drastic about our government and frankly I think we should just fire it and hire Norway to run Canada because we suck at it.

[bush_cheney2004]

.

Edited April 11, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

If the government was in charge we'd still be using brick phones, and the coverage areas would be half what they are now with double the cost. Government does not engage in anything remotely new or take any chances. There'd be no move towards HD TV or even digital TV if government was in charge there, either. Government likes things static (no pun intended) and change comes very, very, very, very slowly, if at all.

(didn't HDTV happen in large measure because of US government intervention? It seems to me there was a great deal of hollering about Congress and the FCC interfering in the market and forcing people to adopt a standard that people didn't actually want...)

Recently our government has given our media oligarchy a kick in the pants by mandating changes to how services are packaged. People tend to get into modes of thinking that "private enterprise = competition = good for customer!" but the truth is that these industries like cable, gas stations, and cell phone providers don't do a whole lot of competing. In the same way that all the gas prices in town are the same and price wars never seem to break out... cell service prices from the major providers are suspiciously similar as well. Some of the small regional players might offer good deals, but for most of us, you go with any of the Big 3 or their offshoots and ultimately end up paying about the same.

Remember when the Harper government was musing about auctioning off some bandwidth to create an opportunity for a non-Big 3 competitor to enter the market? And Bell, Rogers, and Telus cried out as one? They had a website and an advertising blitz across all media. And people hated it. People saw it for what it was: a 3-headed monopoly trying to preserve it's death-grip on wireless in this country.

Regarding the government role in things: I think it is worth pointing out that Telus began life as Edmonton Telephone and Alberta Government Telephone... and those things came into existence at a time when there wasn't much money to be made providing telecom services for an (at the time) minor city like Edmonton or especially in providing telecom service for rural Albertans. If you go back further in time, you could look at the idea of building a railroad across the prairies. "Why would we waste all that money building a railroad across the prairies? There's nothing THERE! It doesn't make economic sense."

There wasn't a good short term business case for building the railroad, but it was a crucial part of building the country. There wasn't a good short term business case for EdTel or AGT, but they were important in building the province. And there isn't a good short-term business case for creating communications infrastructure in Canada's remote regions, but the short-term business case isn't necessarily what should drive public policy. I can understand Telus and Bell not wanting to spend money to provide telecom service in a region where they'll have few subscribers, but that's where I think the government has a role. "A cell tower here would serve these two communities, plus this potential resource development, plus people traveling on this highway. We'll build that tower, and tell the cell service providers that they are going to use it to serve customers in those areas."

The best we can hope for is a market dominated by 2 or 3 players that compete with each other.

We have the 2 or 3 players, but I'm skeptical that they have any intention of competing with each other.

That is why sensible regulation is an important part of the mix.

From the "I don't think any of us expected him to say that" file...

-k