# Rogers Buying Shaw



## Numbersman61 (Jan 26, 2015)

I didn’t see it coming








Rogers to buy Shaw in deal worth $26 billion, combining Canada's two largest cable providers


Rogers says it has the support of the Shaw family




financialpost.com


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

No, but shares of both will see some action today for sure. So with a 70% premium will Shaw stock likely open close to that price. Just curious as I don't own either but was wondering what happens for the average investor in regards buying shares today? If one put a market order in at the open, is it a crap shoot as to want you would get it for or with so much of a premium on the buyout offer you could make some money for a day trade.

* I may have answered my question  the Bid/Ask as of 9:12 is $34


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Numbersman61 said:


> I didn’t see it coming
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now that I think about it, it should have been obvious.
Rogers tried to buy Cogeco, but that was refused, clearly they were on the hunt to buy something.

Also with these interest rates, you SHOULD borrow and spend like crazy to buy good assets. That's the intention of low rates.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Now that I think about it, it should have been obvious.
> Rogers tried to buy Cogeco, but that was refused, clearly they were on the hunt to buy something.
> 
> Also with these interest rates, you SHOULD borrow and spend like crazy to buy good assets. That's the intention of low rates.


BNN says the Cogeco prospects are still on...


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

It will be interesting what the regulators think of the offer and if Rogers will need to make any changes to get it approved.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

newfoundlander61 said:


> It will be interesting what the regulators think of the offer and if Rogers will need to make any changes to get it approved.


I think that the argument will be "cable" and "phone" compete, and that's enough.

Honestly I think the regulated infrastructure, with the monopoly power that brings, should be legally separate from their other divisions (content)


----------



## Juggernaut92 (Aug 9, 2020)

I am just curious but what happens to the shaw stock if the buyout is successful? Will shaw cease to be on the tsx? Or will it continue as it is now with the new price boost it got from Roger's buying it?


----------



## Numbersman61 (Jan 26, 2015)

Juggernaut92 said:


> I am just curious but what happens to the shaw stock if the buyout is successful? Will shaw cease to be on the tsx? Or will it continue as it is now with the new price boost it got from Roger's buying it?
> [/QUOTE


The transaction is being structured as a Plan of Arrangement under which all shares of Shaw will be acquired by Rogers. There will be no Shaw shares to trade.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Time to allow foreign competition.


----------



## Numbersman61 (Jan 26, 2015)

I believe the main driver for this deal is the new reality - the 5G network. Rogers has been in the mobile business for many years - Shaw is a latecomer and was going to need massive capital to get up to speed.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

We have Shaw Satellite for TV and Start.ca for internet (uses Cogeco cable). Cell is Speakout which is on Rogers. All work well. But who knows going forward


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Time to allow foreign competition.


Years ago Verizon (US) was interested in taking over Telus. Then, Verizon changed their mind. Some say because the wireless market is very mature, with limited growth prospects. Looking at share prices of the 3 big ones over the past decade, I tend to agree.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

dubmac said:


> Years ago Verizon (US) was interested in taking over Telus. Then, Verizon changed their mind.


I thought it was blocked by Canadian foreign control rules. Same when there were rumours they were wanting to buy Fido.


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

newfoundlander61 said:


> It will be interesting what the regulators think of the offer and if Rogers will need to make any changes to get it approved.





andrewf said:


> Time to allow foreign competition.





Numbersman61 said:


> I believe the main driver for this deal is the new reality - the 5G network. Rogers has been in the mobile business for many years - Shaw is a latecomer and was going to need massive capital to get up to speed.


Everything is kind of intertwined. The feds seem to want to force a 4th competitor in every market but the capital investment required in the industry is huge and it seems to have been a challenge for Shaw to scale up. If you look to the States, even they couldn't support a 4th national competitor as illustrated by the Sprint and Tmobile merger. If the deal does go through, the Feds will at minimum, have to open competition on the MVNO front. If the market is opened up the foreign competitors, watch for BCE and T to merge. However, I don't see foreign competition being the holy grail as they will still want to get decent returns on their capital investments. While there might be a little bit of savings on plans because larger companies can leverage off their scale, the reality is that the Canadian market is only so big and the infrastructure costs high for the coverage they need to provide and to stay current.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Juggernaut92 said:


> I am just curious but what happens to the shaw stock if the buyout is successful? Will shaw cease to be on the tsx? Or will it continue as it is now with the new price boost it got from Roger's buying it?


Once they are all owned by Rogers, they will be cancelled and delisted.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

gardner said:


> I thought it was blocked by Canadian foreign control rules. Same when there were rumours they were wanting to buy Fido.


could be - it was a while ago, my memory of events in 2013 is limited at best. this link provides some info.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

The deal is supposedly for $40.50 per share. I have this in RRSP's and a taxable account for the nice div but will sell if it gets past my target, just in case the deal goes south


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

milhouse said:


> Everything is kind of intertwined. The feds seem to want to force a 4th competitor in every market but the capital investment required in the industry is huge and it seems to have been a challenge for Shaw to scale up. If you look to the States, even they couldn't support a 4th national competitor as illustrated by the Sprint and Tmobile merger. If the deal does go through, the Feds will at minimum, have to open competition on the MVNO front. If the market is opened up the foreign competitors, watch for BCE and T to merge. However, I don't see foreign competition being the holy grail as they will still want to get decent returns on their capital investments. While there might be a little bit of savings on plans because larger companies can leverage off their scale, the reality is that the Canadian market is only so big and the infrastructure costs high for the coverage they need to provide and to stay current.


Maybe we need to untangle the network and the retail. Make it easier for MVNOs and force incumbents to provide better access to their networks. These companies are extracting enormous rents from Canadians.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Maybe we need to untangle the network and the retail. Make it easier for MVNOs and force incumbents to provide better access to their networks. These companies are extracting enormous rents from Canadians.


It's crazy that the "same" service can vary so widely, depending on the logo.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Mechanic said:


> The deal is supposedly for $40.50 per share. I have this in RRSP's and a taxable account for the nice div but will sell if it gets past my target, just in case the deal goes south


Mine is all taxable. My ACB is ~$27 so I am suddenly in the black. I am unsure if I would sell and at what price. It has always been a long term hold for me -- just sitting back and collecting the dividends. What price are you hoping for?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Time to allow foreign competition.


It is allowed, just not profitable once requirements the big three need to submit to are added to the equation. Thats why Verizon took a powder.

I was looking for an exit out of Rogers since they have given up increasing the dividend rate. This is beginning to look like an opportunity coming up...$70 was my number.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This purchase should be blocked by the government to protect the public interest, and ensure competition. It's a perfect antitrust case.

Too much consolidation among Bell & Rogers. This is the kind of thing which keeps screwing telco consumers and harming the competitive economy. It's the same old story, over and over again.

Anyone going short SJR.B ?


----------



## Numbersman61 (Jan 26, 2015)

I fail to see how this merger affects competition in the cable business. Shaw and Rogers do not compete in the same markets. With regards to cellular, Shaw is a small player.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The fact Rogers will sooner or later move the Shaw office out of Alberta will compel government approval. At any rate its a life line for Shaw. Too many competitors in a small country.


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

Numbersman61 said:


> I fail to see how this merger affects competition in the cable business. Shaw and Rogers do not compete in the same markets. With regards to cellular, Shaw is a small player.


Agreed. BCE was able to buy MTS a while back which is an imperfect parallel, but similar enough. Rogers, Shaw’s advisors have no doubt studied that one. I would guess the issues will be in wireless where the Government wants to ensure a three player market. We will see.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

They absolutely do compete in the same markets. Shaw has a cell phone service which competes with Rogers. In fact I was just about to sign up with Shaw's, but now I'm afraid it will convert into Rogers Fido which is a service I absolutely hate.

Additionally, Shaw might have expanded their internet offering to other regions that Rogers already has a presence in.

There are many ways these companies compete with each other. Merging them harms the competitive landscape and is bad for the country... the merger should be blocked.


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

milhouse said:


> If the deal does go through, the Feds will at minimum, have to open competition on the MVNO front.





james4beach said:


> They absolutely do compete in the same markets. Shaw has a cell phone service which competes with Rogers. In fact I was just about to sign up with Shaw's, but now I'm afraid it will convert into Rogers Fido which is a service I absolutely hate.


Was reading in the G&M that another option is to sell some of Shaw's wireless subscribers to Quebecor or Xplornet to (similar to what Bell had to do when they bought MTS) or to Cogeco to get them into the wireless game.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Shaw can't compete against the Big 3 in wireless. And they don't want to. That is why they are selling. A 4th player cannot compete. There is a strong possibility that Shaw and Rogers combine cable operations and spin out Freedom Mobile. Of course, that will be the end of Freedom Mobile as a major player. They can't afford to expand their network, forget about 5G which will cost far more than 4G by many factors. 

By the way, their service sucks pretty bad, unless you happen to be in a core urban area. You get what you pay for with their cheap service - cheap coverage. Urban areas not so popular these days either in the pandemic. Maybe Shaw sees all this and it's time to get out before it bankrupts them. Sell at the top. 

For everyone thinking the Federal government will save you, forget it. They collect billions and billions in licensing fees every few years. Maybe there is some alternate universe where the Feds decide to unbuckle infrastructure, but that is mostly a dream, as they have no real incentive or will to do anything.


----------



## Numbersman61 (Jan 26, 2015)

I currently have Shaw cable and high speed Internet. Telus is my cellular and home security provider. A number of my friends have left Shaw and gone with Telus for the entire bundle package. Since Shaw does not have good cell service, they are losing many customers to Telus. I believe this is the main driver for the Rogers deal.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I am a Shaw Mobile customer. I see it as a move to protect their legacy internet service and sell some phones. 

I bought DWs iPhone From Virgin and my iPhone 2020 SE from Shaw.

I have very low expectations from any merger.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

agent99 said:


> We have Shaw Satellite for TV and Start.ca for internet (uses Cogeco cable). Cell is Speakout which is on Rogers. All work well. But who knows going forward


Do Rogers offer satellite TV? Doesn't seem like it. Interesting to see what they do with Shaw Satellite if this deal goes through. No Rogers cable in our area. Only Cogeco, I believe. Start offer TV over Cogeco's cable, but it is a small player. Bell satellite is available, I believe. Interesting to see how we are affected.


----------



## Covariance (Oct 20, 2020)

The cost savings, after it closes are about as low risk as they come. Duplicate back office personnel and facilities (accountants, warehouses, planning, lawyers, etc) can be achieved without impacting customer service or competitive positioning. Then there are effiiciencies from combining groups or functions that are subject to scale economies (ie the bigger base lowers the per unit cost). I don't doubt it when Rogers says there are $1billion in savings. 

On the new investment front (capital investment) - these networks consume a lot of capital to maintain and from time to time upgrade to new platforms (eg 5G). Investing this across the combined base of users as opposed to duplication is a big help for the company going forward.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

I used to subscribe to Star Choice with their most basic offering. Then they were taken over by Shaw and when I eventually looked at what I was paying, it had creeped from their most basic to a Silver package. I think that's what was called negative-billing.

My family complained that I kept watching the same programs over and over again. Those specialty channels kept repeating the same documenatries.

So I cut the service and am on rooftop antenna now.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

gardner said:


> Mine is all taxable. My ACB is ~$27 so I am suddenly in the black. I am unsure if I would sell and at what price. It has always been a long term hold for me -- just sitting back and collecting the dividends. What price are you hoping for?


I think if it gets to $35 I'll sell it all and take the cap gain in the taxable. Maybe sell a couple of dogs to offset.


----------



## robfordlives (Sep 18, 2014)

Tempted to sell Rogers over $60 here as the euphoria of this acquisition wears off. I also don't understand their management. Last year they were hammered because of their unlimited data plans that had huge absorption but the market didn't like it as it reduced ARPU as overage fees took a hit....now they go and acquire a competitor to gain market share - what was the point of the unlimited promo?? It's like there is no plan, they are just hoping something works.

Having said that I would be stuck with some large capital gains. Telco is 4% of my portfolio which I think is too rich









Rogers stock drops as unlimited wireless plans hurt revenue


The results emphasized the pressures facing the entire telecom sector, including intense competition on fees, the shift to unlimited data pricing and the potential for government intervention in cutting cellphone bills




www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

"Stuck with some large capital gains"

Gosh darn🙉 don't ya just hate it when that happens!


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I haven't sold, not sure I intend to. It's difficult to find a company as high a quality to replace Rogers, of those that I think are suitable I already own full positions.

I guess I could swap Rogers for Quebecor which I don't own but I believe it would be a wash for my portfolio but would incur substantial taxes.

OK...back to sleep...wake me up when the dividends are paid.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Is anyone else concerned that the acquisition might impact Shaw Mobile And Shaw Direct? I am a customer of both!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

kcowan said:


> Is anyone else concerned that the acquisition might impact Shaw Mobile And Shaw Direct? I am a customer of both!


Absolutely could. Yes I am concerned.

I phoned Shaw today to check something about my bill. The agent told me there is a promotion and I could switch to some plan that would bundle internet + phone at a reduced rate.

I told her, sorry, I'm worried about Rogers buying Shaw. I hate dealing with Rogers (having had years of previous bad experiences with their billing and customer service practices) and so I am hesitant to add any Shaw services now that Rogers is about to ruin them. I already experienced Rogers ruining Fido... I used to love Fido, but it became a disaster once it became Rogers.

I'm not going through that again. In fact, today I started shopping around to competitors to get away from my existing Shaw service out of concern of what Rogers is going to do to them.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

doctrine said:


> Shaw can't compete against the Big 3 in wireless. And they don't want to. That is why they are selling. A 4th player cannot compete. There is a strong possibility that Shaw and Rogers combine cable operations and spin out Freedom Mobile. Of course, that will be the end of Freedom Mobile as a major player. They can't afford to expand their network, forget about 5G which will cost far more than 4G by many factors.
> 
> By the way, their service sucks pretty bad, unless you happen to be in a core urban area. You get what you pay for with their cheap service - cheap coverage. Urban areas not so popular these days either in the pandemic. Maybe Shaw sees all this and it's time to get out before it bankrupts them. Sell at the top.
> 
> For everyone thinking the Federal government will save you, forget it. They collect billions and billions in licensing fees every few years. Maybe there is some alternate universe where the Feds decide to unbuckle infrastructure, but that is mostly a dream, as they have no real incentive or will to do anything.


Given that the country can only support a couple wireless network operators, maybe it is time to treat it as a regulated monopoly.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

It took a long time to deregulate the phone companies. You want to pay $5/month for a longer phone cord again? (Maybe you're too young to remember )


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Reminds me of the 1960,s when a neighbour who worked for bc tel had 9 phones wired in his house. Even one mounted beside the toilet roll!
If I recall correctly you paid extra for a coloured phone and when push button arrived I think that was an extra too.


----------



## robfordlives (Sep 18, 2014)

Blows my mind people complain about their phone bills with unlimited data and everything else nowadays. yea those networks build themselves for nothing apparently


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

agent99 said:


> We have Shaw Satellite for TV and Start.ca for internet (uses Cogeco cable). Cell is Speakout which is on Rogers. All work well. But who knows going forward





doctrine said:


> Shaw can't compete against the Big 3 in wireless. And they don't want to. That is why they are selling. A 4th player cannot compete. There is a strong possibility that Shaw and Rogers combine cable operations and spin out Freedom Mobile. Of course, that will be the end of Freedom Mobile as a major player. They can't afford to expand their network, forget about 5G which will cost far more than 4G by many factors.


Shaw is competing quite well in wireless. They're growing tons every quarter, margins going up, average revenue per user. And when you compared 5g CAPEX costs vs their balance sheet, they can easily build out a 5G network. 

Check the lastest earnings release.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

robfordlives said:


> Blows my mind people complain about their phone bills with unlimited data and everything else nowadays. yea those networks build themselves for nothing apparently


In the late 1960's as a teenager I had my own phone line (BC Tel) and paid 6.25 a month for it. (I had a paper route and made $30.00 per month- lol) . I recently plugged the $6.25 into Canada's inflation calc and it works out to $44.00. Of course long distance charges then were expensive, not like now unlimited Canada wide for most cell phones now. I use magic jack at home. Unlimited Canada /USA ... about $40.00 per year. I do think we're getting squeezed on Internet though. Think I'm paying $95 a month for that with Shaw.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Retiredguy said:


> I use magic jack at home. Unlimited Canada /USA ... about $40.00 per year. I do think we're getting squeezed on Internet though. Think I'm paying $95 a month for that with Shaw.


We have Ooma at home. Just the basic service. Free, except it actually costs about $5/month because of service charges. Canada wide calling. I had fre NA wide calling with Google Voice, but seems they have cut me off because I no longer have a US phone number that is required for registration. I do have Google Hangups, but not sure yet if that allows NA wide calls. So far, we just use Skype for US LD calls. 

For internet, we have minimum service from Start.ca for $45/month. Just 15/2MBs, but we don't notice any restrictions. Would only be another $5 to move up to next tier (30/5), but even Start say that we wouldn't see much difference

My initial $35 on Speakout is getting low after 10 months. My wife has only used about 1/2 of hers! No data, just voice and text emergency phones. We are not cell phone people! If we go to USA for winter, we get a gophone there for 3 months and Speakout doesn't get used.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I pay $80 pt for Shaw Internet and $0 for my mobile phone line. I get my data from Telcel on my dual SIM phone. I cannot imagine that getting better with Rogers.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I asked earlier but perhaps I'm the only person thinking of shorting SJR.B. I'm still thinking of going short.

If all the great buyout news is already priced in, isn't there more potential downside than upside? What if the deal gets denied (since it's clearly anti competitive) or if market conditions turn sour before closing date?

Rogers shouldn't be allowed to buy Shaw. It's bad for the country, bad for consumers.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I asked earlier but perhaps I'm the only person thinking of shorting SJR.B. I'm still thinking of going short.
> 
> If all the great buyout news is already priced in, isn't there more potential downside than upside? What if the deal gets denied (since it's clearly anti competitive) or if market conditions turn sour before closing date?
> 
> Rogers shouldn't be allowed to buy Shaw. It's bad for the country, bad for consumers.


The thing is...

The deal will likely go through. These companies don't just throw these deals out there without doing their homework and greasing some palms.

So shorting Shaw is a bad idea. You'll likely just end up holding short stock and paying interest and dividends while the price stays stagnant and flat. If shorting through options, theta will just destroy your position.

Personally?
I'm loading up more RCI.B
I totally think this deal will pass.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

Thanks Shaw  Got my internet and TV covered for a few years now


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

Yes buying RCI.B is a better option than shorting Shaw.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

I have a block of telecoms that includes Shaw, Rogers, BCE and Telus. If/when the deal goes through, I will be overweight in Rogers. I am contemplating just selling my SJR now and rebalancing into Rogers, BCE and Telus going forward.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

newfoundlander61 said:


> Yes buying RCI.B is a better option than shorting Shaw.


Maybe not if this becomes more common! 









Rogers wireless services restored for ‘vast majority’ of customers after mass outage | Globalnews.ca


"A small number of services with other carriers are continuing to come back online," the company said in a tweet just after 11 p.m. ET.




globalnews.ca


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

It's pretty clear with recent wireless changes that this deal is likely to go through in one form or another, certainly the cable side. The wireless side may actually largely go too, given other regional players will be able to launch nationally eventually in one form or another. The spread has started to narrow.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

agent99 said:


> Maybe not if this becomes more common!


Bell and Telus had problems today as well









Status overview


Realtime overview of issues and outages with all kinds of services. Having issues? We help you find out what is wrong.




downdetector.ca


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

doctrine said:


> It's pretty clear with recent wireless changes that this deal is likely to go through in one form or another, certainly the cable side. The wireless side may actually largely go too, given other regional players will be able to launch nationally eventually in one form or another. The spread has started to narrow.


G&M article today summarizing Quebecor/Videotron's interest (and financial capability) to expand nationally or even buying Freedom per their Q1 earnings call today. Addresses the 4th national carrier/wireless competition issue and provides another path for the Rogers-Shaw deal to go through.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Good to see government doing its job and at least questioning whether this merger is legal.

We have laws in this country to prevent the expansion of monopolies. As I said before "Rogers shouldn't be allowed to buy Shaw. It's bad for the country, bad for consumers."

Hope to see this deal killed. As a country we have to protect ourselves from growth of monopolies.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Good to see government doing its job and at least questioning whether this merger is legal.
> 
> We have laws in this country to prevent the expansion of monopolies. As I said before "Rogers shouldn't be allowed to buy Shaw. It's bad for the country, bad for consumers."
> 
> Hope to see this deal killed. As a country we have to protect ourselves from growth of monopolies.


Monopolies/Oligopolies are tough enough for consumers. It's why we have such high cell, data and bank fees. However, they are great for shareholders. I expected share price to fall further as a result. Rogers down 4% and Shaw down 7% is a lot on a green day but not when most everything else was down 3% or more.


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

The situation SJR seems to be in is that it is steadily losing cable customers and although its wireless business is still growing its subscriber base, they don't seem to have the appetite to invest the capital needed to upgrade its wireless infrastructure to 5G. I'm not sure how much competition SJR can provide in the long term. On the cable side, they're just going to cut operational costs and raise prices in order to maintain their profit margin. On the wireless side, unless they have a change of heart to spend the capital (with corresponding impact to their balance sheet and/or free cash flow) needed to upgrade to 5G, they're going to have a 2nd tier network compared to Robellus' main brands and end up competing with their flanker brands.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

milhouse said:


> SJR seems to be in is that it is steadily losing cable customers


They are a major provider of broadband internet to the home (via their cable infrastructure) and I think that business is doing fine. They provide all the same internet/TV bundles as Rogers at about the same margins in their geography.

Personally I think the importance of 5G is way overblown. Rogers claims to have discontinued 2G service in my area, yet my 2G GSM devices continue to work fine. Heck, they've just barely rolled out LTE and had only a few quarters to make back their investment. I see press releases about upgrading communities to LTE as late as 2020.


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

Yes, their internet subscriber base is doing a bit better than their tv and telephone side. But they still lost 10k internet subscribers in their fiscal 2021. And they only gained about 2k internet subscribers 6 months into their fiscal 2022 while being net negative 135k wireline subscribers overall. However, part of that might be due to being handcuffed a bit while waiting for the merger.

Right now, the business case for 5G for consumers isn't that great IMO other than maybe for fixed point wireless. I think the focus is more on B2B applications. But I also think it's a bit of a chicken/egg scenario where the 5G environment needs to be widely and fully in place before applications start to more rapidly be developed for it.


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

One hurdle possibly cleared with a deal lined up to sell Freedom Mobile to Quebecor. Likely a lot of stuff at play in the background since the deal with Quebecor is for $2.85B whereas Globealive was apparently offering $3.75B. I'm guessing RCI likely thinks a deal with QBR is more likely to satisfy the competition bureau and they likely can recoup revenue with a network and roaming agreement with to offset taking almost $1B less.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Any opinion whether today's massive outage at Rogers will carry weight to the argument that more concentration in their hands would be a bad thing from a regulatory perspective? All the Shaw subscribers still enjoying service must feel like they dodged a bullet.


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

Definitely one of the risk is that you're obviously concentrating more of the population and services onto a smaller number of providers so that if/when one of the providers has an outage, that the impact is potentially larger since they each now manage a correspondingly larger slice of the pie.

CBC was asking these merger and regulatory type questions to the sacrificial Rogers VP that seemed to be just focusing on getting their networks back up, which IMO was dumb. These merger related questions really should be directed to Rogers' CEO or Chair IMO.


----------



## Juggernaut92 (Aug 9, 2020)

The fact that rogers cell service and internet service went down for a whole day is not a good sign. Also, something similar happened for a day last year too.

I wouldn't be surprised if rogers stock takes a beating on monday. Also, this does not bode well for the merger either I think.

Once my phone contract is up in the coming March I am going to switch my cell provider to telus.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

milhouse said:


> Definitely one of the risk is that you're obviously concentrating more of the population and services onto a smaller number of providers so that if/when one of the providers has an outage, that the impact is potentially larger since they each now manage a correspondingly larger slice of the pie.


The Canadian economy has also shifted over the years. The ISPs and mobile operators are more critical to the functioning of our economy than in previous years.

I think just from that standpoint, mergers of major service providers should be disallowed. Increased concentration doesn't just mean inconvenience... it's also more business and economic fragility.

Diversity of service providers means a more resilient economic and business ecosystem, where an outage or disaster at any one carrier has a limited national impact. Kind of a no-brainer, in the national interest.


----------

