You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
47 points

I heard a theory years ago, that the cellphone companies divided Canada up. Each company gets to be market leader in their region.

Sounds very anti-competitive to me.

permalink
report
reply
22 points

That’s exactly how cable works in the States, you only have one real choice depending on where you live. If you try and cancel over their atrocious service there’s a very real chance they’ll ask what other choices you think you have.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

All the smart cable companies make most of their revenue from cable internet now; what remains of cable TV is propped up by a minority of older people who refuse to get with the times or relatively well-off folks who just don’t care.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Me, constantly telling my dad he doesn’t need to spend $300 a month to be brainwashed by mainstream media lmao

Just brainwash yourself on YouTube 🤷🏼‍♂️

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Is satellite TV not a thing in America?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It’s a thing, it’s just run by the same companies, so you’re stuck with them either way.

Plus, with everything moving to streaming, satellite TV just isn’t as relevant. You end up dealing with the same cable companies for internet regardless.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

where is it a thing? I remember back in the 90’s it was a thing upper class people used to do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Susan Crawford wrote on and talked about this (mis)handling of telecoms in the US context years ago, the government letting the companies divide regions up and ensure a lack of competition.

My reading of the situation in Canada for internet and wireless is that it was a historical mix of:

  • lacking political will/interest to govern from day one
  • a policy of letting the free market run until it’s a major problem
  • follow the US lead for anything new
  • and support the (then) recently de-regulated incumbent (Bell) to dominate
  • give competitive advantages to Canadian companies vs allowing foreign competition even if it means worse outcomes for Canadian consumers (better to protect the Canadian economy from foreign interests than to ensure consumer best interests).
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Didn’t a Telus exec confirm this publicly? It’s a little more than a theory.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

I don’t know about elsewhere in Canada, but here, Bell and Rogers compete directly in the mobile space, and Bell competes directly with cable, and all of those options have multiple resellers at half the price, thanks to CRTC.

Are the prices the lowest in the world? No. Can you tell a company to fuck off? Yes, you can.

I don’t know. The Canada described by OP might be a foreign land compared to the part of Canada I know.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

The prices are the same. “Competition” vs the lesser of two evils. Whatever fantasy you’re living in we’re being gouged left right and centre

https://dailyhive.com/canada/canada-industry-minister-slams-rogers-bell-price-hikes

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

They compete on prices just like the grocery stores competed on bread prices

permalink
report
parent
reply

Canada

!canada@lemmy.ca

Create post

What’s going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Regions

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social & Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


Community stats

  • 3.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.4K

    Posts

  • 50K

    Comments

Community moderators