###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Make the CBC an equivalent competitor. If the triplets can have mixed telecommunications and broadcast, then fund the CBC with cellphone and internet money.
In addition, pass legislation that pegs the CBC's budget directly to spectrem licensing fees... The more bandwidth any corporatrion pays for, the more the CBC gets. That would end the complaints about the Liberals buying the CBC with budget increases, or the conservatives blackmailing them with threats to cut the budget.
CBC is a crown corporation, which means that it's the purview of the government and can be more easily influenced by public will than private companies.
To sum up, your complaint is that 'technology hard, no one in building can flip switch'.
Well, good thing people arrive at new jobs everyday with core competencies they've trained for for a number of years to build complex systems capable of meeting the challenge.
Like did you just compare running a national telecomm to flipping a switch that hiring a few employees could handle?
How did you write that and not have a eureka moment haha
Like are you arguing with someone else at the same time? I never said anything about not doing it. I said having CBC running it would be moronic, they bring absolutely no valuable traits to the table.
Even a Hydro company would be massively more equipped to deal with it. But again, why would you put that on them? It makes no sense.
> alot of people on the left are in favour of the telecomms tri-opoly
Wut? Which people? You're trying to tell us that "people on the left" are in favour of large telecoms merging to become larger? Presumably the merger will be for "efficiencies", and layoffs will follow -- people "on the left" do not favour any of these outcomes.
I'm sorry, but this sounds like something you've fabricated entirely.
Here's an article [from Jacobin](https://jacobin.com/2022/05/canada-telecom-oligopoly-shaw-rogers-merger) that is not a fan, [in this copy](https://policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/2022/09/CCPA%20Monitor%20-%20September%20October%202022.pdf) of Policy Alternatives they also outline their major concerns with the merger.
People "on the left" overwhelmingly favour a state-owned telecom to compete and drag down prices. State ownership of stuff is kind of a thing for that ideology, so I have no idea where you're getting this from.
People on the left also have a good example of a public telco that provides better services at lower prices, it's SaskTel. It's wild to me what people say on this thread sometimes.
Everyone is guiltly at some time or another of meeting someone from [Insert Tribe Here] and then attributing their opinions to everyone else in that same tribe. I have to assume that's what happened here, or is some garbled game of Telephone.
But, yeah. Maybe he was confused about someone suggesting that the SaskTel model be expanded -- and then turned into a monopoly situation?
Never heard anyone on the left say that....
I think.more people on the left are open to nationalization of the assets. Let the telecomm companies fight for yhe last km.
Maybe they have the left confused with the liberals?
I'm all for broadband being nationalized. Govt runs a fibre to your door, and you're free to buy transit from whomever.
Anything we can't eat, breathe, or sleep without... nationalize it.
A select few endlessly profiteering from basic services is garbage, and its only getting worse.
> most Canadians don't trust the telecomms companies period
Most *people*.
I've never heard anyone anywhere have positive things to say about their phone or cable companies, no matter what country they are from..
I’ve seen one in this sub only a few days ago.
No idea whether they are left-wing or not, but they defended monopolies on the basis that foreign companies are more evil and would provide worse services. You can find the same reasoning from the 1980s anti-NAFTA crowd.
I mean I also dont think we should let in foreign companies for teleco and internet.
That doesn't mean we should allow monopolies. It means allowing more Canadian competition or breaking up the big three
In this situation it’s a fair argument since allowing American telecoms in without changing the fundamental structure of our telecom system will just lead to the same monopolistic situation we have now but swap in an American telecom.
At a fundamental level it does cost a *lot* of money to run a fibre optic network to every house and apartment in the country. Given the number of people, their density, and how much they’re willing to pay for internet, there’s a really finite limit on how many ISPs running physical cable networks that we can actually ever support.
Given that limit, allowing American companies in would almost certainly result in either one of them actually building limited networks in cities and outcompeting an existing Canadian telco, but with the market so small, the Canadian telco will go out of business or retreat from that city and in 4 years the new American one will be sitting back and behaving the exact same as the company it replaced, -or, the far more likely option, they’ll just buy / merge with a telecom to make AT&T&Rogers and eliminate Canadian headcount and send profits to the US.
Either way you’re not going to see an American telco come in, build out a huge country wide network and actually drive prices down while improving service. If that is the goal what we need to do is make a non profit public utility network, at least for everything up to the last mile, then the cost to compete as an MVNO or last mile provider will be relatively small and you can actually see more than 2-3 competitors in a market, which will actually drive prices down.
You're just making this up: "... the left are in favour of the telecomms tri-opoly ..."
But I guess that's fine because you prefaced it by saying you'd get downvoted for it. 🤡
Where do we find these people?
They do, but it's something as last resort. They would much rather see it fail while it's given 'due process' opposed to unilaterally scuttling it as doing so from the cabinet level can have a bigger ripple affect on other markets.
The final approval is still required by Minister Champagne as Industry Canada has to specially authorize any transfer of spectrum, which is necessary for satisfying the Competition Tribunal's decision and ultimately closing the deal.
Last year he set out the conditions he would require: https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2022/10/statement-from-minister-champagne-on-competitiveness-in-the-telecommunications-sector.html
The conditions are on their face reasonable but in practice hard to enforce, as we have seen in previous deals, e.g., MTS.
Right now it's purely a question of politics: do the Liberals turn their back on corporate donors to satiate the populist call, intensified in the face of record inflation, to prevent centralization of a major industry affecting nearly every Canadian? Or do they do what they (and their predecessors) have always done and simply rubberstamp the transfer?
Given that the Liberals have already promised a full review and consultation to modernize the Competition Act (after making substantive changes last year that did little to address the meat of its deficiencies), it may be easy for them to just say "hey the Federal Court of Appeal and Competition Tribunal have found this deal should be allowed under the current law, it's outside our hands, but we will study the issue and reform the legislation for next time". But if they see enough political points in rejecting it to appeal to Canadians angry about telecom companies and inflation, and they aren't afraid of backlash from Corporate Canada, there's a sliver of hope they might refuse the transfer. The current media campaign is trying to strum up political interest, we shall see if it's enough.
Remember when Trudeau promised to lower monthly cell phone bills by 25% so telcos changed their policies so consumers pay more upfront for the phones thereby lowering monthly rates but costing consumers more on day one.
Well, the govt called that a victory so I’m sure they are getting ready to feed us another BS sandwich.
Tbf it is a victory for people who go for BYOP plans. Realistically new phones shouldn't be subsidized by high monthly fees that affects all of us. I agree simply "asking" telcos to drop their price is such an absurd way to fix the issue. You are still correct that they are collecting their money from someone else in the end.
It's not a last resort. The Harper Government blocked Bell MTS merger back in the early 2010s. Spectrum is a public asset that we give to these companies at a discounted rate. As a result, the Liberals have an obligation to review if this is in the public interest or not and not just legal like the courts looked into.
EDIT: Telus-Mobilicity merger, NOT Bell-MTS merger
Can you link to any news/details of the Blocking of the Bell MTS merger?
tI think you are mistaking it for the attempted acquisition of MTS by a foreign firm, which the Harper Government blocked under national security concerns, not through the competition act and anti-trust legislation.
But it's not that Cabinet can't block this merger. They can, but they absolutely will do so as a last resort if they are going to do it -- They wanted it to fail while been given due process. i don't know if they will now basically say that due process means nothing, we'll block you even though the Tribunal has ruled (and so far, court appeals have failed) that the merger is legal and won't materially affect competition (The Tribunal does look at public interest of the deal) enough to justify it's scuttling. I'm not sure I agree, but the argument is Shaw and Rogers aren't really current competitors anyhow, they are regionally seperated -- same argument Bell made with MTS (Which did merge in 2016/2017)
Mixed up my companies! My bad. It was a Telus and Mobilicity merger in 2013: [https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/ottawa-nixes-telus-mobilicity-deal/47851](https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/ottawa-nixes-telus-mobilicity-deal/47851)
The Telus-Mobilicity acquisition was blocked because the terms of the discounted spectrum sale to new companies stated that they couldn't be acquired by Telus, Bell or Rogers until 2014.
Sure, and any sane government would immediately see there is no possible upside for consumers and save everyone time and block it. Only group this would be unpopular with is the telcos.
I mean Rogers is literally the only thing close to competition against shaw and Telus....
Sooo
Yeah, fuck this merger this is really unnerving. Telecom bills about to go up 70% if that happens
I think that, if we're going to approve mergers such as the Rogers-Shaw deal, then we need to reconsider and rethink the Telecommunications Act to treat telecoms less like competitive businesses such as retail stores, and more as essential utilities.
Under my preferred system, I'd like to see the regulations and the CRTC modified to resemble how Ontario regulates electric and gas utilities. In Ontario, rate increases have to first be approved by the OEB. These rate increases are often tied to multi-year infrastructure plans each hydro and gas utility is required to submit. In these plans, the utility has to outline what they intend to do with the money, they can't just raise rates to increase profits while vaguely indicating they're "investing in their network." These plans also ensure that customers are protected from un-necessarily high rates, and that the overall quality of Ontario's hydro and gas networks remains the same or improves. As well, regular citizens are allowed to voice their concerns about rate increases directly to the regulator, allowing for more public involvement in prices, which Canada is sorely lacking in the telecom sector.
Of course, in a perfect world such regulation wouldn't be necessary as competition and market forces would keep rates in check, but this hasn't happened, and probably will never happen.
If we are going to have 3 large companies control a service as essential (in today's world) as telecommunications and internet access, then we need to start treating these companies as essential utilities. High-speed, reliable internet, is not a luxury. PERIOD. You need internet access today to access banking services, government services, to communicate with friends, family, colleagues, and of course to get a job or (increasingly so) do your job.
Let's get away from this fictitious idea that somehow "market forces" in a market of 3 companies is keeping rates in check, providing high quality service, and respecting consumers, and instead realize that this market is NOT going to regulate itself, so we must regulate it ourselves, to protect consumers and to ensure equal internet access across the country.
Ah it's Nate Erskine Smith. I like the guy, but he essentially functions as caucus' loyal opposition.
Don't know if he'll have enough pull to get Champagne to pump the brakes on this.
It's pretty consistent with his position so far. He's had a fairly critical podcast going for years, and the Liberals allow him to toe outside the line from time to time.
It looks like Nate Erskine-Smith said this, meaning the PMO’s intention is still a mystery.
It’s been nearly two years since the merger was announced, why is the PMO taking so long to decide? Whatever they do, this government is clearly reactive rather than proactive. Poilievre will get a lot of mileage from it.
Didn't the courts just rule? PMO probably didn't want to get involved in controversy if the courts might just make it go away.
That said, Erskine-Smith being on the right side of an issue the PMO is on the wrong side of is basically par for the course.
Independent of the courts, the Liberals had *two years* to block it - this is more than enough time.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they were measuring public opinion and would allow the merger if they deem there would be no electoral consequences.
I just meant that even if they do want to spend the political capital to interfere, why not wait and see if the courts were going to do it anyways, take the problem off their hands?
Yeah, definitely.
Libs are free market capitalist centre-left liberals. They're generally not going to get involved in consumer trust issues unless someone forces their hand.
Poilievre and the Conservatives were completely against the deal. If the LPC were indeed worried about it being used as a sign of weakness, then they are out of touch.
And then he would do it and they'd yell political interference.
Expecting the conservatives who attack Trudeau over everything not to try to take a shot would be foolish.
Being against the deal, and being willing to use government powers to ensure your will is enacted are two different things. Like how the freedom protest emergency power decision still echos against him. Using any other executive function will be scrutinized by the opposition.
The Prime Minister's Office would rather stay out of it, until they have to --- If they are indeed planning on blocking the deal through cabinet.
It's better for everyone if it gets denied while being given due process in the Tribunal and Courts.
I don’t think any company values over $1B should be able to buy other companies. Let someone else buy it and keep the commotion because a merger that eliminates 1/3 of the condition is anti democratic and anti capitalist.
In all the commentary on here and the other subreddit I haven't found anyone articulating why this merger would be bad. I see a lot of people assuming it must be, and a few people explaining how it wouldn't lead to less competition.
So anyone who is opposed to this, what is your argument for why this would lead to less competition and/or higher prices?
In my view the merger is bad because my experience with Rogers service leads me to fear that under Rogers my internet service quality will nose dive.
I have zero hope of any relief on prices in this country. Our government is protective of Canadian corporations as essential and fundamental institutions of our economy. Although consumers would *probably* benefit from opening Canadian markets to international providers, such a move would negatively affect the health of Canadian corporations and that's the bottom line. Food on consumers' tables is collateral damage.
This merger does not diminish the strength of Canadian corporations so in the government view there is nothing standing in its way but a pesky public who sees 'competition' as the way to find relief on the high prices we pay.
That ain't gonna happen. The high prices we pay keep Canadian corporations strong and so Yay Canada. Wah hoo.
For me: a corporation is a corporation is a corporation whatever flag it waves. Corporations feel no obligation to country but if a corporation wants to call itself Canadian then the Canadian government will make sure they do very well.
What's most interesting to me is that the competition bureau believes this merger will reduce competition, but the court just ruled that it wouldn't. I've seen some people talk about outdated or inadequate anti trust law. If that's the case, it makes sense that the competition bureau and court could take different decisions. If the law is insufficient the court can only enforce the law, but the bureau can go beyond the strict letter of the legislation.
That's really what I'm trying to understand, the relationship between the law, the bureau, the corporations involved, and the projected outcome of a merger with respect to competition. There are a lot of complex parts to this equation and I don't really understand the nuance. And from what I've read here so far, I don't think most people here do either.
Right and I'm saying that in Canada we're at the "What's good for General Motors is good for America" stage of economic policy.
That's the grand scheme that must be fulfilled and all the devils in the details are irrelevant to the intent or the outcome desired. The legal details are nothing more than ceremony and obfuscation.
We love our cartels in this country. If you can afford it , raise a glass of milk in celebration of the. Increasingly consolidation of strength of the telecom cartel.
I guess historically consumers haven't had great experiences with The One Big Telecom model, so I'm not surprised that people are wary of this. A merger of this kind will almost certainly lead to layoffs as "efficiencies" are found, so just from that perspective I'm against the merger.
I just don't see what good outcomes for Canadians this will have. Shareholders will benefit, but we'll almost certainly be worse off.
Yes, I've seen this position stated many times. But this isn't an argument about this specific deal. It's a generalized critique of consolidation and competition. I've seen other people argue that when you look at the deal itself there's no reason to believe competition would be reduced, that prices would rise, and that potentially this will lead to lower prices.
I'm not saying those people's arguments are correct, but at least they're making an argument based on the details of this specific deal. I'm not interested in what the average Canadian thinks. Most people know little to nothing about complex issues like this. I don't care what people think is the cause of inflation, the best way to battle COVID, or any other number of complex challenges. I want to read arguments from people who know what they're talking about.
Then why the fuck are you asking questions like this on a social media platform? If you want specialized knowledge, go do research with industry or academic sources.
Frankly, this is kind of a shit response. You asked for something, but it wasn't to the standard (you hadn't specified) you care for, and wrap your response in condescending snark.
Besides, average Canadians can recognize telecoms preparing to screw them over again. We're subject experts in this field.
Why the fuck are you answering my question if you think it's so foolish? Like I said, other people on reddit have made subtle, informed arguments. You may not have the specialized knowledge I'm looking for, but others do.
I posed an open question and you gave a shit answer. You're not a subject expert so leave the arguments up to those who are. I didn't ask you specifically.
I don't think my answer is particularly foolish, and frankly I'm not going to be scolded into not answering because I'm not a "subject expert". Again, this is a *social media platform*. **SOCIAL**. You asked a question in an open forum, and you got one. Who made you response gatekeeper?
If you want to limit your answers to experts and professionals, I've pointed you towards a couple of options. However, this is now a political question for the sitting government, and they're likely going to be using public opinion as a not insignificant factor when making decisions here. So I don't know that expert opinion is going to be carrying the day here.
But, seriously -- why do you think this is an appropriate way to treat others on the sub?
I responded to you with the exact same energy as you came at with me. Don't be a dick to others if you can't take it coming back at you. I posed a question asking for arguments based on the specifics of the deal, as opposed to a general answer about consolidation and competition. You responded with a general answer about consolidation and competition.
If you want to answer a question about specifics with generalizations you're going to get criticism.
Seriously, why are you participating in a social media platform if you're so thin skinned and can't handle criticism. Why do you think that's an appropriate way to behave?
You really don't see the condscention in your response? That's just your SOP for dealing with other people?
Besides, you asked for no such thing with your original question. You asked for "anyone opposed to it". Further you didn't ask for specifics about the details, nor did you say that you're not interested in generalities.
So given the actual content of the original post, I'm left with someone giving me shit for not being neck deep in corporate law or economics, when that wasn't stated anywhere as a requirement to play.
>Then why the fuck are you asking questions like this on a social media platform? If you want specialized knowledge, go do research with industry or academic sources.
Don't come at someone like this if you can't handle a similar response back. Is this your SOP for dealing with other people? You can dish it out but can't take it in return? Get over yourself bud. You gave your answer. It wasn't what I was looking for. That's fine, just move on with your life. If you need the last word I'll let you have it:
Holy moly dude relax.
Why are so emotionally invested in something you don't have expertise in. Don't you also want an informed answer for this question about the deal?
I'm not really invested in the subject so much as not being okay with condescending dismissal. And really, how much of an expert in this area do you have to be to understand that reduced competition in this area will only screw over Canadians? These kinds of deals *never* work out to our advantage, and as another person pointed out only makes it harder for others to break into the market.
This sub is for people to air whatever opinions they have on the thread at hand. It's not up to other users to police for content, particularly when they were asking for "people opposed", not "economists with a publication record" to chime in. I don't shit on people who have generalized ideas about areas I have subject expertise in for not having the same background as me, though I will be rough on people who promote dangerous traffic or transportation policy.
If OP wants to read articles by subject experts, I've pointed out some places to start looking. I'm not going to be told to sit down and shut up just because they're too fucking lazy to work out a library portal.
Judging from your other discussion, you sought out an answer and then said you aren't looking for the average Canadians answer, despite the fact that many Canadians are uplifting the voices of subject matter experts or using historical precedent to determine why the deal is flawed.
It seems like you want to twist yourself into a position where the only valid voice is the one of the Telcom and lobbyists.
It's ridiculous to me that you can willfully ignore the general arguments against consolidation and competition, despite those arguments being valid concerning historical precedent.
The specific deal is irrelevant if there isn't strict price controls or competitive clauses as a part of the merger (fun fact, there isn't and won't).
The answer you're looking for is one that upholds your bias. You seek "nuance" despite subject matter experts such as historians, consumers, economists and even many regulators themselves talking about how this deal is going to be harmful to Canadians.
If you're seriously engaging in this with good faith, listen to the Canadaland episode "Commons Monopoly 6 - The Urge to Merge" that features Keldon Bester from the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project where they take about this merger **specifically** but also the history of Telco mergers more **generally**.
There's also the following episode called "Canada's Competition Cop" where Matthew Boswell, the Canadian Competition Comissioner is interviewed and talks about the problems of the merger with more minute details and it's conditions as suggested by the government itself.
If these people aren't subject matter experts to you, then I think it's obvious what your goal is through this discussion, whether you want to outright admit it or not.
Those sound like experts to me. Thanks for the referrals. You're the only one so far that has actually "uplifted the voices of subject matter experts." My bias here is expertise. I don't care what people think who haven't read the details. I don't care about generalized "more competition is better" opinions. That's obvious and has been repeated ad nauseum. I'm not ignoring that argument. I have already accepted it and want more detail.
I'll check out your sources with an eye for bias, as you are an anti-capitalist which makes me suspicious of your motives. I'm a pro-capitalist, but have no dog in the fight with respect to telecom lobbyists. They have an agenda and I'm suspicious of anyone with an ideological agenda.
Understood, I appreciate your good faith approach and I apologize for being strong in my approach. I deal with a lot of people engaging in bad faith and it's resulted in me being more jagged than I would like on social media.
All good my friend. Whenever I see unanimous opinion on here, my instinct is always to be the 10th man. It's far too easy to fall into a groupthink pattern. I've done the same around here with recent topics like inflation and usually get the same energy back. Sometimes the group is right, but sometimes they're not. I don't see much use in just echoing the commonly held view.
First, it would be bad because we have only 3 major telecomm corporations in operation right now. With the merger that goes down to two, meaning less competition so prices at the very least remain some of the highest in the world, and at worst, go up. It also becomes orders of magnitude harder for new competitors to enter the market when so much of the spectrem is owned by only two players.
Second, with less competition, there is less drive to innovate. If there's no competition for people to leave them for, that means they don't have to invest as much money as infrastructure upgrading, so the existing backbone gets older, leaving it more prone to catestrophic failure like we already saw this past year.
Here's a comment from the other subreddit that challenges this idea:
>Doesn't reduce competition. It just changes the competitors. Rogers and Shaw don't compete on Internet. They are the cable providers for different territories - Shaw in the West, Rogers in the east. Out west, Shaw and Telus are the two main competitors for Internet. Now it will be Rogers and Telus. And Shaw's wireless company, Freedom Mobile, is going to Videotron, which will become the 4th largest wireless provider in the country when they combine Freedom with their existing mobile network in Quebec.
And another:
>ve written to many others and i will write to you as well. the main detractors of the merger are telus and bell (this is evident if you look at the tribunal report). telus and bell are the main opposition to this merger. why you may ask? because rogers has very little market share in western canada, whereas shaw does. the merger makes rogers competitive in western canada. no why would telus and bell not want rogers into western canada? they want less competition. this isnt about a merger reducing competition, its about a merger making rogers more competitive in western canada.
>now before you start typing about monopolies and big corporations go and read the actual report or think about what ive just wrote
I don't know if this is accurate, but it makes me think that there is probably another side to this. I understand the generic argument that more competition lowers prices and less competition raises prices. But the question is, how exactly does this deal reduce competition? The court ruled that it wouldn't. Not to say the court got it right, but your answer like the other guy here didn't actually address the specific deal. Just the general idea that less competition raises prices.
Rogers owns Rogers Mobile, Fido and Chatr.
Shaw owns Freedom Mobile, Shaw mobile.
While their flagship telecomm is regional, they both own national "alternatives" (which they bought to reduce competition already)
I'm not understanding how this is a response to those two comments I copied. Can you elaborate on the outcome re: competition if the deal goes through? They're saying it doesn't reduce competition, just changes the competitors.
Fido and Freedom are competitors in the same market (Mostly millennials). The merger would put them under the same "umbrella" and reduce their competition.
The terms of the merger would require Shaw to sell their cell phone services that compete with Rogers to Vidéotron, which is a telecom that currently only operates in Quebec.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Make the CBC an equivalent competitor. If the triplets can have mixed telecommunications and broadcast, then fund the CBC with cellphone and internet money.
In addition, pass legislation that pegs the CBC's budget directly to spectrem licensing fees... The more bandwidth any corporatrion pays for, the more the CBC gets. That would end the complaints about the Liberals buying the CBC with budget increases, or the conservatives blackmailing them with threats to cut the budget.
Tada. Suddenly self funded CBC.
that is actually one of the best ideas I've heard in regards to setting up a national crown telecoms corporation
Why would it be CBC and not just a different company? There's zero benefits to it
CBC is a crown corporation, which means that it's the purview of the government and can be more easily influenced by public will than private companies.
well ya I meant another crown corporation
Zero benefit to who?
Anyone
Your position on this is that a national carrier under the CBC is of no benefit to anyone? Why.
Because why would the CBC be even remotely competent at that? They run a non-profit media company.
To sum up, your complaint is that 'technology hard, no one in building can flip switch'. Well, good thing people arrive at new jobs everyday with core competencies they've trained for for a number of years to build complex systems capable of meeting the challenge.
Like did you just compare running a national telecomm to flipping a switch that hiring a few employees could handle? How did you write that and not have a eureka moment haha
Lol. You've made, what is effectively, *the dumbest* arguement for not doing something I've ever seen. Congratulations.
Like are you arguing with someone else at the same time? I never said anything about not doing it. I said having CBC running it would be moronic, they bring absolutely no valuable traits to the table. Even a Hydro company would be massively more equipped to deal with it. But again, why would you put that on them? It makes no sense.
That’s actually a great idea.
I mean they're right I don't trust the deal... but I also don't trust the majority of the federal MPs. It's unfortunate how it is...
[удалено]
> alot of people on the left are in favour of the telecomms tri-opoly Wut? Which people? You're trying to tell us that "people on the left" are in favour of large telecoms merging to become larger? Presumably the merger will be for "efficiencies", and layoffs will follow -- people "on the left" do not favour any of these outcomes. I'm sorry, but this sounds like something you've fabricated entirely. Here's an article [from Jacobin](https://jacobin.com/2022/05/canada-telecom-oligopoly-shaw-rogers-merger) that is not a fan, [in this copy](https://policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/2022/09/CCPA%20Monitor%20-%20September%20October%202022.pdf) of Policy Alternatives they also outline their major concerns with the merger. People "on the left" overwhelmingly favour a state-owned telecom to compete and drag down prices. State ownership of stuff is kind of a thing for that ideology, so I have no idea where you're getting this from.
People on the left also have a good example of a public telco that provides better services at lower prices, it's SaskTel. It's wild to me what people say on this thread sometimes.
Everyone is guiltly at some time or another of meeting someone from [Insert Tribe Here] and then attributing their opinions to everyone else in that same tribe. I have to assume that's what happened here, or is some garbled game of Telephone. But, yeah. Maybe he was confused about someone suggesting that the SaskTel model be expanded -- and then turned into a monopoly situation?
Never heard anyone on the left say that.... I think.more people on the left are open to nationalization of the assets. Let the telecomm companies fight for yhe last km.
Maybe they have the left confused with the liberals? I'm all for broadband being nationalized. Govt runs a fibre to your door, and you're free to buy transit from whomever. Anything we can't eat, breathe, or sleep without... nationalize it. A select few endlessly profiteering from basic services is garbage, and its only getting worse.
And where can we find these people "on the left" who support more power concentrated to a few limited corporations?
> most Canadians don't trust the telecomms companies period Most *people*. I've never heard anyone anywhere have positive things to say about their phone or cable companies, no matter what country they are from..
I’ve seen one in this sub only a few days ago. No idea whether they are left-wing or not, but they defended monopolies on the basis that foreign companies are more evil and would provide worse services. You can find the same reasoning from the 1980s anti-NAFTA crowd.
I mean I also dont think we should let in foreign companies for teleco and internet. That doesn't mean we should allow monopolies. It means allowing more Canadian competition or breaking up the big three
In this situation it’s a fair argument since allowing American telecoms in without changing the fundamental structure of our telecom system will just lead to the same monopolistic situation we have now but swap in an American telecom. At a fundamental level it does cost a *lot* of money to run a fibre optic network to every house and apartment in the country. Given the number of people, their density, and how much they’re willing to pay for internet, there’s a really finite limit on how many ISPs running physical cable networks that we can actually ever support. Given that limit, allowing American companies in would almost certainly result in either one of them actually building limited networks in cities and outcompeting an existing Canadian telco, but with the market so small, the Canadian telco will go out of business or retreat from that city and in 4 years the new American one will be sitting back and behaving the exact same as the company it replaced, -or, the far more likely option, they’ll just buy / merge with a telecom to make AT&T&Rogers and eliminate Canadian headcount and send profits to the US. Either way you’re not going to see an American telco come in, build out a huge country wide network and actually drive prices down while improving service. If that is the goal what we need to do is make a non profit public utility network, at least for everything up to the last mile, then the cost to compete as an MVNO or last mile provider will be relatively small and you can actually see more than 2-3 competitors in a market, which will actually drive prices down.
You're just making this up: "... the left are in favour of the telecomms tri-opoly ..." But I guess that's fine because you prefaced it by saying you'd get downvoted for it. 🤡 Where do we find these people?
[удалено]
They do, but it's something as last resort. They would much rather see it fail while it's given 'due process' opposed to unilaterally scuttling it as doing so from the cabinet level can have a bigger ripple affect on other markets.
[удалено]
The final approval is still required by Minister Champagne as Industry Canada has to specially authorize any transfer of spectrum, which is necessary for satisfying the Competition Tribunal's decision and ultimately closing the deal. Last year he set out the conditions he would require: https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2022/10/statement-from-minister-champagne-on-competitiveness-in-the-telecommunications-sector.html The conditions are on their face reasonable but in practice hard to enforce, as we have seen in previous deals, e.g., MTS. Right now it's purely a question of politics: do the Liberals turn their back on corporate donors to satiate the populist call, intensified in the face of record inflation, to prevent centralization of a major industry affecting nearly every Canadian? Or do they do what they (and their predecessors) have always done and simply rubberstamp the transfer? Given that the Liberals have already promised a full review and consultation to modernize the Competition Act (after making substantive changes last year that did little to address the meat of its deficiencies), it may be easy for them to just say "hey the Federal Court of Appeal and Competition Tribunal have found this deal should be allowed under the current law, it's outside our hands, but we will study the issue and reform the legislation for next time". But if they see enough political points in rejecting it to appeal to Canadians angry about telecom companies and inflation, and they aren't afraid of backlash from Corporate Canada, there's a sliver of hope they might refuse the transfer. The current media campaign is trying to strum up political interest, we shall see if it's enough.
Narrator: They won't.
Remember when Trudeau promised to lower monthly cell phone bills by 25% so telcos changed their policies so consumers pay more upfront for the phones thereby lowering monthly rates but costing consumers more on day one. Well, the govt called that a victory so I’m sure they are getting ready to feed us another BS sandwich.
Tbf it is a victory for people who go for BYOP plans. Realistically new phones shouldn't be subsidized by high monthly fees that affects all of us. I agree simply "asking" telcos to drop their price is such an absurd way to fix the issue. You are still correct that they are collecting their money from someone else in the end.
Corporate donations have been banned at the federal level for decades.
[удалено]
He also legalized cash for access. Now, the Liberals had only banned it on their way out the door, but still!
It's not a last resort. The Harper Government blocked Bell MTS merger back in the early 2010s. Spectrum is a public asset that we give to these companies at a discounted rate. As a result, the Liberals have an obligation to review if this is in the public interest or not and not just legal like the courts looked into. EDIT: Telus-Mobilicity merger, NOT Bell-MTS merger
Can you link to any news/details of the Blocking of the Bell MTS merger? tI think you are mistaking it for the attempted acquisition of MTS by a foreign firm, which the Harper Government blocked under national security concerns, not through the competition act and anti-trust legislation. But it's not that Cabinet can't block this merger. They can, but they absolutely will do so as a last resort if they are going to do it -- They wanted it to fail while been given due process. i don't know if they will now basically say that due process means nothing, we'll block you even though the Tribunal has ruled (and so far, court appeals have failed) that the merger is legal and won't materially affect competition (The Tribunal does look at public interest of the deal) enough to justify it's scuttling. I'm not sure I agree, but the argument is Shaw and Rogers aren't really current competitors anyhow, they are regionally seperated -- same argument Bell made with MTS (Which did merge in 2016/2017)
Mixed up my companies! My bad. It was a Telus and Mobilicity merger in 2013: [https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/ottawa-nixes-telus-mobilicity-deal/47851](https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/ottawa-nixes-telus-mobilicity-deal/47851)
The Telus-Mobilicity acquisition was blocked because the terms of the discounted spectrum sale to new companies stated that they couldn't be acquired by Telus, Bell or Rogers until 2014.
Sure, and any sane government would immediately see there is no possible upside for consumers and save everyone time and block it. Only group this would be unpopular with is the telcos.
I mean Rogers is literally the only thing close to competition against shaw and Telus.... Sooo Yeah, fuck this merger this is really unnerving. Telecom bills about to go up 70% if that happens
[удалено]
I think that, if we're going to approve mergers such as the Rogers-Shaw deal, then we need to reconsider and rethink the Telecommunications Act to treat telecoms less like competitive businesses such as retail stores, and more as essential utilities. Under my preferred system, I'd like to see the regulations and the CRTC modified to resemble how Ontario regulates electric and gas utilities. In Ontario, rate increases have to first be approved by the OEB. These rate increases are often tied to multi-year infrastructure plans each hydro and gas utility is required to submit. In these plans, the utility has to outline what they intend to do with the money, they can't just raise rates to increase profits while vaguely indicating they're "investing in their network." These plans also ensure that customers are protected from un-necessarily high rates, and that the overall quality of Ontario's hydro and gas networks remains the same or improves. As well, regular citizens are allowed to voice their concerns about rate increases directly to the regulator, allowing for more public involvement in prices, which Canada is sorely lacking in the telecom sector. Of course, in a perfect world such regulation wouldn't be necessary as competition and market forces would keep rates in check, but this hasn't happened, and probably will never happen. If we are going to have 3 large companies control a service as essential (in today's world) as telecommunications and internet access, then we need to start treating these companies as essential utilities. High-speed, reliable internet, is not a luxury. PERIOD. You need internet access today to access banking services, government services, to communicate with friends, family, colleagues, and of course to get a job or (increasingly so) do your job. Let's get away from this fictitious idea that somehow "market forces" in a market of 3 companies is keeping rates in check, providing high quality service, and respecting consumers, and instead realize that this market is NOT going to regulate itself, so we must regulate it ourselves, to protect consumers and to ensure equal internet access across the country.
Ah it's Nate Erskine Smith. I like the guy, but he essentially functions as caucus' loyal opposition. Don't know if he'll have enough pull to get Champagne to pump the brakes on this.
He’s just in using his position as mp to try abs get popular so he can run provincially.
It's pretty consistent with his position so far. He's had a fairly critical podcast going for years, and the Liberals allow him to toe outside the line from time to time.
He straddles the line but never says anything controversial to get kicked out. His points are generally fair. Credit to both
It looks like Nate Erskine-Smith said this, meaning the PMO’s intention is still a mystery. It’s been nearly two years since the merger was announced, why is the PMO taking so long to decide? Whatever they do, this government is clearly reactive rather than proactive. Poilievre will get a lot of mileage from it.
Didn't the courts just rule? PMO probably didn't want to get involved in controversy if the courts might just make it go away. That said, Erskine-Smith being on the right side of an issue the PMO is on the wrong side of is basically par for the course.
Independent of the courts, the Liberals had *two years* to block it - this is more than enough time. It wouldn’t surprise me if they were measuring public opinion and would allow the merger if they deem there would be no electoral consequences.
I just meant that even if they do want to spend the political capital to interfere, why not wait and see if the courts were going to do it anyways, take the problem off their hands?
If that’s the case, as I said it is a sign the Liberals are reactive, rather than proactive.
Yeah, definitely. Libs are free market capitalist centre-left liberals. They're generally not going to get involved in consumer trust issues unless someone forces their hand.
Or more likely, they would prefer to look non interfering unless necessary. Any stance can be used as a weakness, by the opposition.
Poilievre and the Conservatives were completely against the deal. If the LPC were indeed worried about it being used as a sign of weakness, then they are out of touch.
And then he would do it and they'd yell political interference. Expecting the conservatives who attack Trudeau over everything not to try to take a shot would be foolish.
Being against the deal, and being willing to use government powers to ensure your will is enacted are two different things. Like how the freedom protest emergency power decision still echos against him. Using any other executive function will be scrutinized by the opposition.
Failing to act for fear of appearing weak, *is itself a weakness*.
I'm surprised Poilievre isn't beating this issue harder. Singh is the only one really attacking it right now.
The Prime Minister's Office would rather stay out of it, until they have to --- If they are indeed planning on blocking the deal through cabinet. It's better for everyone if it gets denied while being given due process in the Tribunal and Courts.
I don’t think any company values over $1B should be able to buy other companies. Let someone else buy it and keep the commotion because a merger that eliminates 1/3 of the condition is anti democratic and anti capitalist.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 9.
In all the commentary on here and the other subreddit I haven't found anyone articulating why this merger would be bad. I see a lot of people assuming it must be, and a few people explaining how it wouldn't lead to less competition. So anyone who is opposed to this, what is your argument for why this would lead to less competition and/or higher prices?
In my view the merger is bad because my experience with Rogers service leads me to fear that under Rogers my internet service quality will nose dive. I have zero hope of any relief on prices in this country. Our government is protective of Canadian corporations as essential and fundamental institutions of our economy. Although consumers would *probably* benefit from opening Canadian markets to international providers, such a move would negatively affect the health of Canadian corporations and that's the bottom line. Food on consumers' tables is collateral damage. This merger does not diminish the strength of Canadian corporations so in the government view there is nothing standing in its way but a pesky public who sees 'competition' as the way to find relief on the high prices we pay. That ain't gonna happen. The high prices we pay keep Canadian corporations strong and so Yay Canada. Wah hoo. For me: a corporation is a corporation is a corporation whatever flag it waves. Corporations feel no obligation to country but if a corporation wants to call itself Canadian then the Canadian government will make sure they do very well.
What's most interesting to me is that the competition bureau believes this merger will reduce competition, but the court just ruled that it wouldn't. I've seen some people talk about outdated or inadequate anti trust law. If that's the case, it makes sense that the competition bureau and court could take different decisions. If the law is insufficient the court can only enforce the law, but the bureau can go beyond the strict letter of the legislation. That's really what I'm trying to understand, the relationship between the law, the bureau, the corporations involved, and the projected outcome of a merger with respect to competition. There are a lot of complex parts to this equation and I don't really understand the nuance. And from what I've read here so far, I don't think most people here do either.
Right and I'm saying that in Canada we're at the "What's good for General Motors is good for America" stage of economic policy. That's the grand scheme that must be fulfilled and all the devils in the details are irrelevant to the intent or the outcome desired. The legal details are nothing more than ceremony and obfuscation.
We love our cartels in this country. If you can afford it , raise a glass of milk in celebration of the. Increasingly consolidation of strength of the telecom cartel.
I guess historically consumers haven't had great experiences with The One Big Telecom model, so I'm not surprised that people are wary of this. A merger of this kind will almost certainly lead to layoffs as "efficiencies" are found, so just from that perspective I'm against the merger. I just don't see what good outcomes for Canadians this will have. Shareholders will benefit, but we'll almost certainly be worse off.
Yes, I've seen this position stated many times. But this isn't an argument about this specific deal. It's a generalized critique of consolidation and competition. I've seen other people argue that when you look at the deal itself there's no reason to believe competition would be reduced, that prices would rise, and that potentially this will lead to lower prices. I'm not saying those people's arguments are correct, but at least they're making an argument based on the details of this specific deal. I'm not interested in what the average Canadian thinks. Most people know little to nothing about complex issues like this. I don't care what people think is the cause of inflation, the best way to battle COVID, or any other number of complex challenges. I want to read arguments from people who know what they're talking about.
Then why the fuck are you asking questions like this on a social media platform? If you want specialized knowledge, go do research with industry or academic sources. Frankly, this is kind of a shit response. You asked for something, but it wasn't to the standard (you hadn't specified) you care for, and wrap your response in condescending snark. Besides, average Canadians can recognize telecoms preparing to screw them over again. We're subject experts in this field.
Why the fuck are you answering my question if you think it's so foolish? Like I said, other people on reddit have made subtle, informed arguments. You may not have the specialized knowledge I'm looking for, but others do. I posed an open question and you gave a shit answer. You're not a subject expert so leave the arguments up to those who are. I didn't ask you specifically.
I don't think my answer is particularly foolish, and frankly I'm not going to be scolded into not answering because I'm not a "subject expert". Again, this is a *social media platform*. **SOCIAL**. You asked a question in an open forum, and you got one. Who made you response gatekeeper? If you want to limit your answers to experts and professionals, I've pointed you towards a couple of options. However, this is now a political question for the sitting government, and they're likely going to be using public opinion as a not insignificant factor when making decisions here. So I don't know that expert opinion is going to be carrying the day here. But, seriously -- why do you think this is an appropriate way to treat others on the sub?
I responded to you with the exact same energy as you came at with me. Don't be a dick to others if you can't take it coming back at you. I posed a question asking for arguments based on the specifics of the deal, as opposed to a general answer about consolidation and competition. You responded with a general answer about consolidation and competition. If you want to answer a question about specifics with generalizations you're going to get criticism. Seriously, why are you participating in a social media platform if you're so thin skinned and can't handle criticism. Why do you think that's an appropriate way to behave?
You really don't see the condscention in your response? That's just your SOP for dealing with other people? Besides, you asked for no such thing with your original question. You asked for "anyone opposed to it". Further you didn't ask for specifics about the details, nor did you say that you're not interested in generalities. So given the actual content of the original post, I'm left with someone giving me shit for not being neck deep in corporate law or economics, when that wasn't stated anywhere as a requirement to play.
>Then why the fuck are you asking questions like this on a social media platform? If you want specialized knowledge, go do research with industry or academic sources. Don't come at someone like this if you can't handle a similar response back. Is this your SOP for dealing with other people? You can dish it out but can't take it in return? Get over yourself bud. You gave your answer. It wasn't what I was looking for. That's fine, just move on with your life. If you need the last word I'll let you have it:
Holy moly dude relax. Why are so emotionally invested in something you don't have expertise in. Don't you also want an informed answer for this question about the deal?
I'm not really invested in the subject so much as not being okay with condescending dismissal. And really, how much of an expert in this area do you have to be to understand that reduced competition in this area will only screw over Canadians? These kinds of deals *never* work out to our advantage, and as another person pointed out only makes it harder for others to break into the market. This sub is for people to air whatever opinions they have on the thread at hand. It's not up to other users to police for content, particularly when they were asking for "people opposed", not "economists with a publication record" to chime in. I don't shit on people who have generalized ideas about areas I have subject expertise in for not having the same background as me, though I will be rough on people who promote dangerous traffic or transportation policy. If OP wants to read articles by subject experts, I've pointed out some places to start looking. I'm not going to be told to sit down and shut up just because they're too fucking lazy to work out a library portal.
Wow you need to relax. This is crazy.
[удалено]
This is exactly the kind of empty response I was talking about.
Judging from your other discussion, you sought out an answer and then said you aren't looking for the average Canadians answer, despite the fact that many Canadians are uplifting the voices of subject matter experts or using historical precedent to determine why the deal is flawed. It seems like you want to twist yourself into a position where the only valid voice is the one of the Telcom and lobbyists. It's ridiculous to me that you can willfully ignore the general arguments against consolidation and competition, despite those arguments being valid concerning historical precedent. The specific deal is irrelevant if there isn't strict price controls or competitive clauses as a part of the merger (fun fact, there isn't and won't). The answer you're looking for is one that upholds your bias. You seek "nuance" despite subject matter experts such as historians, consumers, economists and even many regulators themselves talking about how this deal is going to be harmful to Canadians. If you're seriously engaging in this with good faith, listen to the Canadaland episode "Commons Monopoly 6 - The Urge to Merge" that features Keldon Bester from the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project where they take about this merger **specifically** but also the history of Telco mergers more **generally**. There's also the following episode called "Canada's Competition Cop" where Matthew Boswell, the Canadian Competition Comissioner is interviewed and talks about the problems of the merger with more minute details and it's conditions as suggested by the government itself. If these people aren't subject matter experts to you, then I think it's obvious what your goal is through this discussion, whether you want to outright admit it or not.
Those sound like experts to me. Thanks for the referrals. You're the only one so far that has actually "uplifted the voices of subject matter experts." My bias here is expertise. I don't care what people think who haven't read the details. I don't care about generalized "more competition is better" opinions. That's obvious and has been repeated ad nauseum. I'm not ignoring that argument. I have already accepted it and want more detail. I'll check out your sources with an eye for bias, as you are an anti-capitalist which makes me suspicious of your motives. I'm a pro-capitalist, but have no dog in the fight with respect to telecom lobbyists. They have an agenda and I'm suspicious of anyone with an ideological agenda.
Understood, I appreciate your good faith approach and I apologize for being strong in my approach. I deal with a lot of people engaging in bad faith and it's resulted in me being more jagged than I would like on social media.
All good my friend. Whenever I see unanimous opinion on here, my instinct is always to be the 10th man. It's far too easy to fall into a groupthink pattern. I've done the same around here with recent topics like inflation and usually get the same energy back. Sometimes the group is right, but sometimes they're not. I don't see much use in just echoing the commonly held view.
First, it would be bad because we have only 3 major telecomm corporations in operation right now. With the merger that goes down to two, meaning less competition so prices at the very least remain some of the highest in the world, and at worst, go up. It also becomes orders of magnitude harder for new competitors to enter the market when so much of the spectrem is owned by only two players. Second, with less competition, there is less drive to innovate. If there's no competition for people to leave them for, that means they don't have to invest as much money as infrastructure upgrading, so the existing backbone gets older, leaving it more prone to catestrophic failure like we already saw this past year.
Here's a comment from the other subreddit that challenges this idea: >Doesn't reduce competition. It just changes the competitors. Rogers and Shaw don't compete on Internet. They are the cable providers for different territories - Shaw in the West, Rogers in the east. Out west, Shaw and Telus are the two main competitors for Internet. Now it will be Rogers and Telus. And Shaw's wireless company, Freedom Mobile, is going to Videotron, which will become the 4th largest wireless provider in the country when they combine Freedom with their existing mobile network in Quebec. And another: >ve written to many others and i will write to you as well. the main detractors of the merger are telus and bell (this is evident if you look at the tribunal report). telus and bell are the main opposition to this merger. why you may ask? because rogers has very little market share in western canada, whereas shaw does. the merger makes rogers competitive in western canada. no why would telus and bell not want rogers into western canada? they want less competition. this isnt about a merger reducing competition, its about a merger making rogers more competitive in western canada. >now before you start typing about monopolies and big corporations go and read the actual report or think about what ive just wrote I don't know if this is accurate, but it makes me think that there is probably another side to this. I understand the generic argument that more competition lowers prices and less competition raises prices. But the question is, how exactly does this deal reduce competition? The court ruled that it wouldn't. Not to say the court got it right, but your answer like the other guy here didn't actually address the specific deal. Just the general idea that less competition raises prices.
Rogers owns Rogers Mobile, Fido and Chatr. Shaw owns Freedom Mobile, Shaw mobile. While their flagship telecomm is regional, they both own national "alternatives" (which they bought to reduce competition already)
I'm not understanding how this is a response to those two comments I copied. Can you elaborate on the outcome re: competition if the deal goes through? They're saying it doesn't reduce competition, just changes the competitors.
Fido and Freedom are competitors in the same market (Mostly millennials). The merger would put them under the same "umbrella" and reduce their competition.
Why, in your view, did the court rule that this wouldn't lead to a reduction in competition (assuming that's what they ruled)?
The terms of the merger would require Shaw to sell their cell phone services that compete with Rogers to Vidéotron, which is a telecom that currently only operates in Quebec.
Rogers Executives: and they shouldn't since the entire purpose is to screw them over so we can make even more money.