[matt4077]

I doubt there are many countries with more than two or three competing networks. There may be a few more resellers, or even several dozens. But it’s just uneconomical to build the hardware five times over.

In any case, a FTA is not going to change it.

[dmix]

So how does that explain the high cost of our networks vs other countries? I'm not convinced a regulated oligopoly is the only positive option.

If anything it's only positive for:

a) the private friends of government who profited when the business was kept 100% Canadian

b) the intelligence agencies who were given plenty of access.

Most of the ownership capital went to a small group of millionaires and billionaires. Meanwhile the jobs/network/other taxable services would still exist in Canada regardless of the nationality of the original investors.

Plus the wireless networks continue to be very closely controlled in these companies favour. They only recently allowed a single competitor into the marketplace in Canada, Freedom Mobile, and they have the best pricing with tons of data. The main monopolies still have nothing comparable price-wise - their only edge remains their network investment which will diminish over time absent more gov intervention.

But even getting Freedom Mobile, which had plenty of foreign investors, to be a thing was a huge controversial, challenging, multi-year deal, which was extremely risky for its investors because the Canadian regulatory agencies were very close to nipping the deal under extreme political pressure from the entrenched companies.

How exactly do we as citizens benefit from this?

[IfOnlyYouKnew]

I don’t know.. Maybe Canada requires these networks to serve even the rural parts of the country? That would seem to be expensive. Or they charged extremely high license fees. Those work like a tax, making the specific service more expensive, but allowing for government services or lowering your other taxes.

In any case, it seems like you are maybe focusing too much on conspiratorial explanations like corruption and sourveillance. I know it’s easy and somewhat satisfying to immediately assume bad faith, but if you always assume the worst, that is what you will end up with. Because if honest politicians trying to balance the complex and competing interests of a modern society somewhat fairly, and then get spit in the face whenever they meet someone in the streets, soon you will have driven out the honest ones, or their will to remain honest. Because why bother, when the reaction is completely disconnected from your accruing, anyway?

[teunispeters]

If they don't do their utmost to remain on top for their customers, they lose... and they have to be careful because competitors are constantly trying to get in. Sure, WIND (now Freedom under Shaw) and the like happened in the past ... but I'm in Sasktel region and it's very hard to compete with Sasktel. (better infrastructure and much lower pricing than any of the others ... but basically Saskatchewan only, although roaming seems to work anywhere well thanks to treaties between the companies)

I mean sure they can sit on the licenses they have and just keep pressure on (cough Telus) but ... they'll lose any moment new tech moves in, or competitors with the right backing.

[mantas]

I'm pretty sure that having "just" 3 networks don't explain the costs by themselves. My country has 3 networks and we have one of the lowest prices in EU.

What probably does make it expensive is big territory with little population density.

[geoka9]

Freedom Mobile is owned by Shaw nowadays. There is also Public Mobile (which started as an independent provider but is now owned by Telus).