# Orascom founder and Wind financier regrets entering Canada



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/11/17/f-naguib-sawiris.html



> Canada is the only country in the world, besides China, that hasn't opened up to foreign direct investment for foreign capital, Sawiris said. "I don't know why Canada wants to be matched with China," he said. "There's only two countries [with] very ridiculous old laws, and nothing is happening."


Canadian pride... 



> Sawiris said Canada's antiquated telecom rules are destined to hurt the economy's productivity and dampen innovation.
> 
> "You need to ask yourself, why isn't Rogers in the U.K., like Vodafone or France Telecom," he said.
> 
> "Why aren't they everywhere if they're so good? The answer is simple, here they're protected. They can be inefficient, their cost structure can be expensive."





> "Why would an Egyptian like me be in 25 countries, and a big company [stay] here? Because they're pampered," he said. "How can you create innovation if you close up yourself like that? What's the argument? I don't see it."


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Being directly involved with telecommunications for 25 years with Nortel
and on central office digital switching gear as well as cell phone systems,
this issue is complicated to say the least. 

I think that with WIND, it's more to do with the "alleged" government protection of the established "Big Boys", who really don't like competition from foreign sources, because in the end, they have to share the "pie" with others and lose revenue.

I'm also with WIND now. I heard (last spring) that the "Big Three" were going to take WIND to court because they felt that WIND didn't have sufficient "Canadian Content", and the CRTC and Feds should make a case against them, revoking the current laws that allow them to operate in Canada. 

Haven't heard of the outcome yet on that legal action, or if the gov't is going to change the rules at some point, but it's a long drawn out legal
battle and so far WIND being well established now, and is determined to stay
and fight it out. 

Their rates undercut the "big three's" rates and they advertise heavily to attract more and more customers so they have a larger established customer base,across Canada to show CRTC that they are now a major
contender in the cellphone/internet business. 

The "Big Three" aren't happy about some "foreign investor muscle" chewing into a lucrative market they had created for themselves...
(ie: if you don't like our rates..check out our competition..they offer exactly the same rates and structure..so where are ya gonna go?)

Now with this "upstart" from Egypt is coming in, and disturbing their little 
"gentlemen's agreement/revenue nest", not to undercut each other, 
this is what it comes down to..revenue sharing and splitting. 

Wind got in , because the gov't re-wrote the rules, not realizing the impact that foreign investment and competition would have on the 
"old Titanics"..which have invested heavily in telecommunication infrastructure over the last 25 years, wanting to keep rates at a higher level to recover that big investment in infrastructure, and maintain profitability.

Years ago, long distance rates were a big revenue producer for them and
they really socked it to the subscribers of their land lines. When the CRTC
allowed more competition in the long distance portion, that took out a big
chunk of their revenue, and basically made the LD part of the land line
a "free for all".... driving LD rates so low that no one could really make much
money at it..(ie: YAK LD and their 3c a minute anywhere in NA.)

Bell in Ont/Quebec, and Telus out west, (don't know about Rogers), realizing
that there was NO money to be made in 1FR lines (monthly flat rate copper
lines), decided on a "gentlemens agreement" amongst themselves to protect their big investment in the cell phone towers and digital switching gear (for routing cell phone calls) because foreign investors do not have to invest as much in infrastructure like the "Big Three".

Foreign investors and service providers just basically rent the infrastructure from Bell/Telus/Rogers.. etc. 

Foreign investors/service providers are only concerned about the end users,
offer attractive rates to attract new customers undercutting the
"Big Three", who still have to support a huge infracture and the cost of maintaining that infrastructure.

So there is more to it than meets the eye.


http://www.thestar.com/business/article/737883--wind-mobile-ruling-will-rattle-industry

and this..(Tony Clement got into some hot water on this one too). 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...rtc-on-wind-mobile-court-told/article2026560/


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Wind is definitely sharing point of presence with the site and tower share rule, but they aren't leasing the others equipment, they have their own infrastructure

Here's an example, a picocell installed in the Toronto PATH last summer:









Being in any business is risky unless you have CRTC-style regulators in your back pocket. So that begs the question, while Bell/Rogers/Telus home market has the biggest safety net in the world, why aren't they using some capex to expand revenue streams in different places around the world? If their end goal is to make money, if they could double or triple or quadruple their profit with a foot in some EMs and other DEs, why aren't they doing it? They are afraid of expansion, don't know how to innovate and have zero tolerance for risk and would just rather squeeze the Canadian consumer, it's ridiculous and pathetic. Bell/Rogers/Telus shouldn't be in business.

Our incumbents actually get together every once in awhile and decide the telecom roadmap at "forums to lead the industry", but they don't actually discuss price fixing and how to divide the riches, because of course that would be illegal.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ddkay said:


> Wind is definitely sharing point of presence with the site and tower share rule, but they aren't leasing the others equipment, they have their own infrastructure.


Yes, cell towers are easy to put up and a small part of the infrastructure
required to switch and route cell phone calls. The big investment, (hundreds of billions) is the digital switching gear infrastructure, central offices,and other infrastructure (fibre optic cable or microwave) that involves a huge capital outlay. 



> Being in any business is risky unless you have CRTC-style regulators in your back pocket. So that begs the question, while Bell/Rogers/Telus home market has the biggest safety net in the world, why aren't they using some capex to expand revenue streams in different places around the world? If their end goal is to make money, if they could double or triple or quadruple their profit with a foot in some EMs and other DEs, why aren't they doing it?


Don't know..maybe they don't want to take that risk. Bell has been extremely
conservative in any investment over the years. Bell has a federal charter,
Telus (aka AGT used to be provincial for Alberta, but now they have expanded
into other Canadian markets and competing directly with Bell. Rogers used
to be just TV cable, but they saw a huge market share when the cell phone
business took off about 15 years ago, so they have invested quite a bit
in their cell phone infrastructure..but they share towers with Bell along the
major highways..that I know for a fact. 



> They are afraid of expansion, don't know how to innovate and have zero tolerance for risk and would just rather squeeze the Canadian consumer, it's ridiculous and pathetic. Bell/Rogers/Telus shouldn't be in business.


Well say what you will..Bell was there at the beginning, and so was AGT
(now Telus), these incumbents as you call them, invested heavily in
infrastructure in Canada to modernize telecommunications for Canadian
consumers..so now they want a return on their investment over the years,
and they don't want foreign upstarts coming in an undercutting them, it's
bad for business! 



> Our incumbents actually get together every once in awhile and decide the telecom roadmap at "forums to lead the industry", but they don't actually discuss price fixing and how to divide the riches, because of course that would be illegal.


Yes, just like the oil companies..jacking up the prices at the same time
at every gas station, so in effect..there is NO Competition...the price
is the price..if you want it..you pay it!


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Sorry but there is no excuse to defend incumbents. They would drop like flies in an unregulated normal free market environment. This is just as pathetic as JPMorgan crying that they can't operate with Basel III minimum capital requirements. Jamie, if you can't afford minimum capital requirements you shouldn't be a financial institution. Sell your business or shut down.

The way FIRA and CRTC operate, the Canadian government might as well nationalize our telecoms. At least tax payers would see some return on investment.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ddkay said:


> Sorry but there is no excuse to defend incumbents. *They would drop like flies in an unregulated normal free market environment. The way FIRA and CRTC operate, the Canadian government might as well nationalize our telecoms*. At least tax payers would see some return on investment.


Well, I think you are missing the point. The original investors in Canada's
communication system, (incumbents if you prefer to call them that), provided the infrastructure capital for expanding and modernizing the telephone network. The Government of Canada and the provincial gov'ts telecommunication requirements for Ont/Quebec IS Bell. Unless various businesses and gov't choose to by their own PBX system and maintain it,
they rent the services from Bell. So business and gov't is one huge aspect
of providing services. Wind and all the other recent cellphone players coming
on the scene cannot afford to spend hundreds of billions in todays money,
to establish duplicate infrastructure, so in most instances they share
with Bell's facilities. 

Yes, Wind may put up their own cell phone sites in residential areas
that where there is enough customers to warrant it..it doesn't take
much to put up a cell phone antenna..you can share a tower or even
stick it on a roof of a tall office building.

The HUGE capital outlay, is the infrastructure to support those cell phone
antennas and the operating expenses of maintaining the infrastructure.

You seem to be exasperated if I read your comments.."drop like flies" and
"let the gov't nationalize the telephone systems"..etc.

Well my response as someone who has worked in the telecom industry for
almost my entire working career of 35+ years..I can say this quite truthfully:

The reason that Canada has one of the best telecommunication networks,
and service providers to practically ALL Canadians..is because Bell and other "incumbents" (provincially owned telephone systems, etc), invested heavily in modernization, expansion of networks and infrastructure/sofware to
support all the modern conveniences we as Canadians expect today.

If the federal gov't was to run it, it would run down hill very quickly (IMO), especially with ministers (I won't comment on who, but I think you can figure it out) BUNGLING , by jumping off and changing policy mid stream without investigating and understanding the full story or impact of the changes.

It's like "Dief the chief" killing the Arrow project during the pre-production phase, when he got the "sweetheart deal" for free Bomarc missles from Kennedy, which proved to be useless in Canada's high arctic....
History has revealed the consequences of that decision..Now we have to
spend BILLIONs on the JSF-35 and pay that kind of money to the American
military-industrial complex, rather than employ engineers, tool and die
makers and assembly workers in Canada. 

so..if given the opportunity, the federal gov't running the telecommunication
business..sooner or later, enough idiotic cabinet ministers appointed to that
post would ruin it for Canada!

What we need IS Private enterprise... AND established private enterprise
(like Bell), which needs time to sort things out with the new guys coming in..
...that WERE NOT THERE for Canadians 10, 20 or even 40 years ago.

Bell doesn't want to get involved with unstable foreign investments.
Nortel which was 51% owned by Bell up until the mid 90s, went out
and bid on foreign contracts for switching and infrastructure gear.
They lost their shirts on some of the foreign contracts because they
had no control over the political scenes changing. Nigeria was one
country that comes to mind, where Nortel's installation and engineering
crews were lucky to get out with their lives, during the civil war many
years ago.

Canada is at least stable up to now. That's why foreign investors like
Canada so much. 


you wish to call them that)


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Wind may lease dark fiber and power sources on certain sites, but I guarantee you they are not sharing switching and broadcast equipment, they have their own colocated side by side. That's why their build out is taking so long, and they have an extremely small coverage area.

The new carriers that do share the same physical facilities and actually running network overlays are MVNOs (Mobile Virtual Network Operators), a wholesale model, examples of those would be Chatr (Rogers), Koodo (Telus), Virgin (Bell), and 7-Eleven Speakout Wireless (Rogers), Presidents Choice Telecom, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_mobile_phone_companies



> What we need IS Private enterprise... AND established private enterprise
> (like Bell), which needs time to sort things out with the new guys coming in..
> ...that WERE NOT THERE for Canadians 10, 20 or even 40 years ago.


Orascom was founded in 1998. Even if they did exist earlier and wanted to be here, they couldn't be because we had the Foreign Investment Review Agency established by Trudeau in 1973. Incumbents have had multiple decades of coddling.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

As for coverage in the boonies or in the sea. You know, that's really not that necessary anymore. We have satellite phones for that. Cellular operators should really be focusing on building high performance dense urban networks.

Satellite phone: http://ca.globalstar.com/en/index.php?cid=1250

$499 hardware cost, $50 activation fee, $19.99/month service cost with 1 year term, $30.00/month after



> Includes airtime for calls placed from the Home Service Area of the US, Canada or Caribbean calling to the US and Canada.
> Free Long Distance for calls to the US, Canada or Puerto Rico.
> Free Incoming Short Messaging Service (SMS).
> Low Roaming and International Long Distance rates for other regions.
> ...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ddkay said:


> As for coverage in the boonies or in the sea. You know, that's really not that necessary anymore. We have satellite phones for that. Cellular operators should really be focusing on building high performance dense urban networks.
> 
> $499 hardware cost, $50 activation fee, $19.99/month service cost with 1 year term, $30.00/month after


That is the END user cost. What about the billions required by the TelCo to
make those cell phone or satellite phones work? Who invests in that
Wind or Doggy cell phone-Fido?....I don't think so.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Globalstar does NOT have government subsidies helping them out, they raise money in the capital markets, they are a pure and simple publicly traded company (NYSE:GSAT). They deal with business realities. They IPOd in 1995, went bankrupt once and have now restructured and reemerged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalstar



> When the new Globalstar emerged from bankruptcy in April 2004, it was owned by Thermo Capital Partners (81.25%) and the original creditors of Globalstar L.P. (18.75%). Globalstar LLC was incorporated in April 2006 to become Globalstar, Inc.


I'm not asking that we eliminate all government subsidies. They are necessary in some cases, but we should NOT have to pay exorbitant rates if we don't need that extra coverage. I don't travel outside the city often, so I should be able to use a city only provider like Wind, and now the governments oligopoly enabling policies will force them out Canadian consumers have no one else to turn to for reasonably priced mobile services.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ddkay said:


> Wind may lease dark fiber and power sources on certain sites, but I guarantee you they are not sharing switching and broadcast equipment, they have their own colocated side by side. That's why their build out is taking so long, and they have an extremely small coverage area.


yes, but if you need to make a call on your Wind cellphone to another subscriber..who's network infrastructure do you think you go through?

Wind's?...no..it's Bell's because they have been here for over a 100 years
and built the infrastructure to allow you to do that!

For instance, 1-800 # or whatever, you go through specialized central offices
class 1 (owned by Bell or the provincial telephone utilities) that have the computer software to route your call to the US, or
any where else in the world.

It doesn't happen 'auto-magically", you know. 
There happens to be a lot of telecommunication infrastructure behind the DDD networks in the US, Canada and anywhere else.
That takes many years and hundreds of billions in investment in CANADA
and similarily in the US networks. 



> The new carriers that do share the same physical facilities and actually running network overlays are MVNOs (Mobile Virtual Network Operators), a wholesale model, examples of those would be Chatr (Rogers), Koodo (Telus), Virgin (Bell), and 7-Eleven Speakout Wireless (Rogers), Presidents Choice Telecom, etc.


Whatever ..they are new on the scene, and only here because
the gov't relaxed the rules to allow more competition in that sector.
They don't need to invest hundreds of billions in switching and carrier infrastructure, the CRTC competition rules allow them now to use existing infrastructure and pay a negotiated rate to the owners of the equipment. It's a bit like mailing a letter to the US..you pay the postage and (hst now) at CP..and the letter reaches it's destination at your
desired recipient.




> Orascom was founded in 1998. Even if they did exist earlier and wanted to be here, they couldn't be because we had the Foreign Investment Review Agency established by Trudeau in 1973. Incumbents have had multiple decades of coddling.


Ok, so what?..the rules have changed since then..but Bell has been here almost as long as Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in Brantford Ont..
(although the Americans claim they invented it, like they claim they invented 
basketball ), 

Nevertheless, those 100 years plus of telecommunication infrastructure, expansion, modernization and investment takes a long time to pay off...and carries with it lots of maintenance headaches as well.

If a major fiber optic cable gets cut by a contractor, or a important
class 1 to class 5 switching office goes down..who is responsible for
restoring service to the subscribers?

Wind? Doggy-do cell phone?, Magic Jack? ..."Jack Blacque-Shellac" cell phone service provider?...
no it's Bell, and out west the provincially run Telcos!


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

PSTN/PLMNs are not run solely by Bell Canada, nor Telus, nor Rogers. World telephony does not solely rely on DMS-100 (although they are a big part of POTS) and CS2Ks. What entitles the big trio to ALL Canadians money? Modern network hierchies are extremely simple and low cost. Like all other real physical carriers (i.e. not MVNO) Wind has got their own routing equipment for their own customers.

An outbound call from a cellular carrier works like this
1) LNP or MNP lookup (carrier compliance mandates number databases are shared)
2) Call routed from service provider trunk line to the destination number
3) Answer/Hangup

If routed through a PSTN/PLMN vs VoIP the call uses the E.164 protocol. It's really not technologically impossible as you make it sound.



> If a major fiber optic cable gets cut by a contractor, or a important
> class 1 to class 5 switching office goes down..who is responsible for
> restoring service to the subscribers?


That depends who the fiber is owned by. If Allstream (MTS) owns the fiber, Allstream must repair it. If Bell owns the fiber, Bell must repair it. Regardless, if Wind is leasing a few strands to a cell site, their providers Service Level Agreements mandate quick fault restorations. Wind is not a Tier 1 backbone provider with undersea fiber optic cables and legs into major cities around the world, and neither is Rogers. Entities like AT&T, Level3, TeliaSonera exist for that. You can charge by capacity utilization, put in artificial limitations and different routing policies, but networks are inherently designed to be used as a shared resource, that's nothing new.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ddkay said:


> World telephony does not solely rely on DMS-100 (although they are a big part of POTS) and CS2Ks.


Ok, I realize that. I worked on DMS-100/200/300 and each one of these
digital switching systems, can, depending on software loads and peripheral 
configurations ( LM/RLM, TMs, DTC, DCMs) can assign routes over intra
office trunking to local NNx, or over inter-office trunking to a higher hiearchy (class 4 or Class 2 or even Class 1-final route, 
so it's not just straight POTS calls with these either. A DMS 300 can accept
and route international calls over satellite or submarine cable systems.

However, I am not talking about world telephony here, only the NA PSTN systems that I worked on...Area code (3) + NNx (exchange, 3 ) + DN (4). 




> What entitles the big trio to ALL Canadians money? *Modern network hierchies are extremely simple and low cost.*


.

Ok, maybe from the capital expenditure POV, but it still takes people to monitor, maintain and service these modern networks..and repair them when a part or all of it goes down. That is still a real cost and they want a return
on investment..they also own a lot of realestate, and I'm sure there are taxes
on real estate (switching offices etc) that they have to pay to the towns 
and cities. Vehicles, spares..repair crews..all of those expenditures amount
to a real cost and they still need to turn a profit as well, for the stockholders. 



> Like all other real physical carriers (i.e. not MVNO) Wind has got their own routing equipment for their own customers.
> 
> An outbound call from a cellular carrier works like this
> 1) LNP or MNP lookup (carrier compliance mandates number databases are shared)
> ...


So you are implying that Wind has their own trunk lines to other destination
offices in the NA switching hierarchy? 




> If routed through a PSTN/PLMN vs VoIP the call uses the E.164 protocol. It's really not technologically impossible as you make it sound.


Voip is a different set of protocols and call routing. I'm not totally familiar
after 10 years in regards to Voip (although I did work on a peripheral that was capable of Voip) at least on the maintenance s/w aspect.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

They have interconnection points and pay each other to carry each others traffic who has the bigger or smaller operation is pretty irrelevant from a topological view.

My beef is with FIRA/CRTC because they are useless toothless organisations that do no good for the industry or consumers.

A few years ago Telus got in trouble because Verizon owned too much stake in their shares.

http://about.telus.com/community/en.../verizon-to-sell-its-735-million-telus-shares

Incumbents and startups should equally be able to seek international funding and partnerships.

The way it is now, the government says it is ILLEGAL for Wind/Globealive to spend billions here on spectrum or infrastructure even if they wanted to because Orascom, the people that (were) willing to back the majority of their debt are not Canadian. It's a dumb legal framework that doesn't make any sense except to protect incumbents from ever seeing competition as long as it exists.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ddkay said:


> My beef is with FIRA/CRTC because they are useless toothless organisations that do no good for the industry or consumers.
> 
> A few years ago Telus got in trouble because Verizon owned too much stake in their shares.


Well what can we say..the CRTC is supposed to be there to mediate
in some cases for the general public good and to allow carriers to
submit rate proposals and that sort of thing. They don't always come
up with decisions in the best interests of the general public or the
Telcos/common carriers..but at least from what I know about them..
they have come some way since the 60s/70s with allowing competition
in certain sectors. 

I suppose, if they were disbanded with no control over "Canadian content"
the Americans would move in very quickly and either buyout what they
could or set up operations by undercutting rates where nobody would be
able to make any money on cellphone calls. 

For the consumer, it probably would not be a bad thing, as everyone wants
cheaper rates and unlimited plans..I certainly do on my very reduced Nortel
pension now. At one time, I had all my services with Bell because as a former
Nortel employee, we got a bit of discount on Bell services....but not anymore
since Nortel is no longer around. Now living on a 33% reduced Nortel pension,
soon to be wound up into an even lower annuity...I am looking for the
best and cheapest deal out there. Like a lot of low income consumers these
days..I can't afford the "big three" anymore.

So yes, I am one of the converted, from the personal economics aspect. 



> Incumbents and startups should equally be able to seek international funding and partnerships.
> 
> The way it is now, the government says it is ILLEGAL for Wind/Globealive to spend billions here on spectrum or infrastructure even if they wanted to because Orascom, the people that (were) willing to back the majority of their debt are not Canadian. It's a dumb legal framework that doesn't make any sense except to protect incumbents from ever seeing competition as long as it exists.


Favoritism and lobbyists will always be there to sway decisions. The major
players also have a hand in this. What they are afraid of is that they (CRTC/
Feds) open the gates for foreign investment in the telecommunications sector, sooner or later the Chinese and others will want to come in..and
at that point the CRTC won't have much control over anything.


----------



## K-133 (Apr 30, 2010)

Cavernman - My interpretation of what you are saying, in summary, is that Bell and Telus invested a lot of money in a certain technology a long time ago and therefore deserve exclusive rights to another technology today. 

Forgive me if I'm incorrect, either way my points stand on how I feel about Canada's telecommunications sector.

I'm sorry, but that is not what fair means to me. Logically the technology which Bell and Telus invested in is the foundation of what we have today. Physically it is not. It is true that we have resale providers in Canada, and I can understand a certain layer of protection for the investments made on those infrastructures and the resale of the services which they provide, but if a service provider is willing to come into Canada and build their own infrastructure like Wind Mobile is doing, it makes no sense to me that they should be prevented. It is such investment which will lay the physical and logical foundation for tomorrow's technologies, and ensure fairness for all.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

K-133 said:


> Cavernman - My interpretation of what you are saying, in summary, is that Bell and Telus invested a lot of money in a certain technology a long time ago and therefore deserve exclusive rights to another technology today.


Well they did invest a lot in the Canadian telecommunications infrastructure.
Bell has a federal charter, the others like Telus (formerl AGT), BC Tel (or whatever they choose to call themselves now) did also. So there is a fundamental desire for return on investment. BTW..the infrastructure is
modern..the days of dial sets and stepbystep switching gear are long gone/
its all digital and CDMA and the latest technology, so Wind doesn't exactly
have the upper edge on any of the so called new technology.



> Forgive me if I'm incorrect, either way my points stand on how I feel about Canada's telecommunications sector.


You are certainly entitled to your own opinion on this forum, so am I ..and
so is everyone else. 



> I'm sorry, but that is not what fair means to me. Logically the technology which Bell and Telus invested in is the foundation of what we have today. Physically it is not. It is true that we have resale providers in Canada, and I can understand a certain layer of protection for the investments made on those infrastructures and the resale of the services which they provide, but if a service provider is willing to come into Canada and build their own infrastructure like Wind Mobile is doing, it makes no sense to me that they should be prevented. It is such investment which will lay the physical and logical foundation for tomorrow's technologies, and ensure fairness for all.


Ok now..let's not everyone start jumping on me, just because I'm a former telecommunications sector worker and voicing my opinion, being in the
business since the 70s, when I got out of school. 

I have no preference one way or another, as long as the service is acceptable to me and the rates are affordable and it's a flat rate service
on both cell and data. 

I was just trying to provide some background, why the big three players
may be voicing some objection...when another player #4 (Wind),
comes in on the scene, and cuts themselves a large slice of the revenue pie.

I really don't give a rat's *** what the gov't or CRTC thinks or does.

As a consumer of telephone/internet data..I have been with Telus then switched to Bell and because of some dissatisfaction with billing from both, finally decided to switch to Wind, when that service was offered in my area.
I'm happy, saving money in the process..so...I'm all for it...the big
boys will have to deal with changing times and consumers shopping around.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Don't take it personally carverman  I'm still cool with you. I would have actually preferred working in the telecom sector as a career if there were better opportunities here, but I have a long lasting personal vandetta against the big guys and all the little ones like MTO are getting snapped up anyway.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Well I am also for opening up the market for consumers. If the CRTC/gov't
didn't at least change with the times to allow consumers a choice..we
would still have <pick one> Monopoly #1, #2, #3 and they would strike an
agreement with each other not to undercut each others rate structures and
plans and we would be locked into contracts of X minutes a month and if
you go over, they whack you with 25c a minute on any time over the contract. 

This is what prompted me to drop Bell and go to WIND. 
Bell double charged me on their sat tv..$150 twice (automatic deduction
from my CC)..and it took a lot of phone calls and emails to convince them that they should refund the second overcharge of $150 for the tv charge.
I got the overcharge back eventually. 

But in an attempt to straighten out the billing error with Bell, I exceeded the monthly contract minutes on my cell phone. They essentially (in the total
air time used) charged me $10.00 for 1-888 calls I made to Bell TV to try 
and straighten out THEIR billing error.

When I got my monthly cell phone bill from Bell, I scrutinized it and found
that they included the 1-888 calls to Bell and 611 calls to them (quick access
to service provider) against my monthly contract allotted minutes (200 from
what I remember) and then had charged me for excess minutes.

When I called Bell Mobile, and explained what had happened, the girl at the
other end..basically told me.."so what!..everyone charges air time for 1-800
calls"..but I reply.."some of these calls were to Bell". She didn't see it from
my position that calls to BELL should not be counted in the contract air
time or at least adjusted from my cell phone. Told me there was nothing that could be done..but pay my bill.

That was the last straw for me with Bell Mobile..
Although they sympathized with my situation, they didn't want to
do the right customer complaint thing and adjust the bill on the next billing with a credit. Maybe if they did, I might have stayed with them..but they didn't want to do that..so for $10 worth of extra billing, they lost about $500 to $600 worth of yearly cell phone revenue from me.

Without competition from Wind and others coming in to attract customers
from Bell, Telus, Rogers...they would just carry on with their excessive
billing plans.

The big concern is that the "Big 3" are big enough and have enough capital
to buy out any SERIOUS competition if the conditions are right.
This happened when I first went with CLEARNET..it was great, but then
Telus bought them out. I had to deal with their rates and charges and
decided to shop around and at that time Bell was happy to give me
the Nortel discount to steal me from Telus.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...oost-ownership-threshold-for-large-banks.html

So now, our banks can be more than 50% foreign owned but telecoms no...


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

ddkay said:


> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...oost-ownership-threshold-for-large-banks.html
> 
> So now, our banks can be more than 50% foreign owned but telecoms no...


Where did you read that? Increasing the widely-held target by 50% is a different animal.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ddkay said:


> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...oost-ownership-threshold-for-large-banks.html
> 
> So now, our banks can be more than 50% foreign owned but telecoms no...


Foreign cash injections is what Harper is after...the Royal mint can only print
money so fast. Canadian banks are too stingy...they want lots of collateral
before they will lend out any money...if you don't have it, chances are you
have to look somewhere else to get it.
The banks need to loosen up their purse strings and it isn't going to happen
anytime soon unless the threshold for foreign ownership changes.

As far as telecom...the big three don't want any new kid on the block competing with them...so they lobby the gov't/CRTC to come up with
protectionist laws..to protect their "investment".


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

carverman said:


> Foreign cash injections is what Harper is after...the Royal mint can only print
> money so fast.


Huh?

If they had a mind to, the Mint could print money fast enough to make your head spin.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Huh?
> 
> If they had a mind to, the Mint could print money fast enough to make your head spin.


Not if they only run the presses during the day shift. They would have to
pay shift premiums to print money after 5pm. 

Personally, I'm all for it (50% or 51% ownership of the fat Canadian banks<
They have enjoyed a captive market for too long, profiting off the backs
of the working poor. I have no sympathy for the fat bank executives, who make millions in salary and bonuses and still gouge the poor working class
where ever they can. They pay peanuts on any savings yet
charge exorbitant interest on any personal loans or mortgages these days.

And most of their profit is not taxable, unlike the interest on general savings
of the working poor! It's time for the Wall street bankers to take charge.


----------



## jagger (Jan 12, 2011)

K-133 said:


> Cavernman - My interpretation of what you are saying, in summary, is that Bell and Telus invested a lot of money in a certain technology a long time ago and therefore deserve exclusive rights to another technology today.
> 
> Forgive me if I'm incorrect, either way my points stand on how I feel about Canada's telecommunications sector.
> 
> I'm sorry, but that is not what fair means to me. Logically the technology which Bell and Telus invested in is the foundation of what we have today. Physically it is not. It is true that we have resale providers in Canada, and I can understand a certain layer of protection for the investments made on those infrastructures and the resale of the services which they provide, but if a service provider is willing to come into Canada and build their own infrastructure like Wind Mobile is doing, it makes no sense to me that they should be prevented. It is such investment which will lay the physical and logical foundation for tomorrow's technologies, and ensure fairness for all.


The incumbents have already recouped their costs for the decades old infrastructure. Running a cellular network is not that expensive; with ecnonomies of scale, prices should be dropping not rising. Why should they have any exclusive rights to anything?

Have you looked at electronics prices recently, you can get smartphones for under $300, laptops for under $300, 40 inch lcds under $300. Why aren't we seeing the same trend in the telecommunications sector?

This is the same argument the big 3 automakers made back in the 80s, that it's too expensive to make cars in North America. Forward today, Toyota and Honda are the most successive automakers, yet they both make cars here in North America.


----------

