cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Virtual Network Operators

gjong26
Great Citizen / Super Citoyen

https://globalnews.ca/news/6576650/telus-ceo-jobs-crtc-mvnos/

 

Would this be good or bad if there were more competition as far as mobile services offered in the Country. 

7 REPLIES 7

Staliger
Mayor / Maire

@gjong26 wrote:

https://globalnews.ca/news/6576650/telus-ceo-jobs-crtc-mvnos/

 

Would this be good or bad if there were more competition as far as mobile services offered in the Country. 


@gjong26Competition is always good. It forces companies to evolve and improve their services and products.

popping
Oracle
Oracle

i was paying Rogers  $35 for 200 minutes and 250MB data for a long time until Mobilicity, Wind and (old) Public came along, I switched some of my lines to Mobilicity.  When my kid does not have Mobilicity signal at university campus.  I switched to Zoomer(Cityfone) which is a MVNO on Rogers Network.  

 

Later, the old Public became new Public owns by Telus.  Mobilicity became Chatr owns by Rogers.  Wind became Freedom owns by Shaw cable.  Bell created Lucky as Bell does not want Rogers and Telus has all the fun at the tier 3 level.

 

Price comes down because of competition and technology.

@gjong26 For PM customers, this wouldn't be good. If there are job cuts. It will disproportionately affect us. 

@popping , the competition that you mention there, is basically a facade since the money still flows upward into the big 3's coffers. And they still control almost the whole market.

 

But what the hell, let the fly by night operators in. Too cheap a price may mean crappy customer service as we have seen with some of the smaller Internt providers.

 

I'm no economist, and I don't have a business degree of any kind; however, it seems to me that the Public Mobile model is a Telus controlled answer to lower priced cell service. Third tier works like PM, Lucky and Chatr work for some people and it is very affordable. 

 

However, if Bell, Telus and Rogers are forced to open its network up to MVNO's offering lower prices, obviously the consumer wins, but Telus will certainly lose market share that they depend on to PROVIDE the network we are all using.

 

It seems to me that the issue becomes, the future success of Bell, Telus and Rogers, and inturn the network. I know many don't care about and some even have contempt against "the Big 3," but if the people who own the networks lose enough market share, they will not be able to support the network costs and we'll all be out of cell service. I'm sure the CRTC has no interest in funding the network so that the big three remain successful. 

 

My feeling is, they built and maintain the network, so they should benefit from it. The price paid by the MVNO should allow the owner of the network make money on their investment and provide capital for upkeep, expansion and improvements. If "the Big 3" are compensated in this manner, the cost savings will be minimal, and we still run the risk of putting one or all of the big three out of business. 


@ChuckYeah wrote:

I'm no economist, and I don't have a business degree of any kind; however, it seems to me that the Public Mobile model is a Telus controlled answer to lower priced cell service. Third tier works like PM, Lucky and Chatr work for some people and it is very affordable. 

 

However, if Bell, Telus and Rogers are forced to open its network up to MVNO's offering lower prices, obviously the consumer wins, but Telus will certainly lose market share that they depend on to PROVIDE the network we are all using.

 

It seems to me that the issue becomes, the future success of Bell, Telus and Rogers, and inturn the network. I know many don't care about and some even have contempt against "the Big 3," but if the people who own the networks lose enough market share, they will not be able to support the network costs and we'll all be out of cell service. I'm sure the CRTC has no interest in funding the network so that the big three remain successful. 

 

My feeling is, they built and maintain the network, so they should benefit from it. The price paid by the MVNO should allow the owner of the network make money on their investment and provide capital for upkeep, expansion and improvements. If "the Big 3" are compensated in this manner, the cost savings will be minimal, and we still run the risk of putting one or all of the big three out of business. 


+1.  The telecoms are essentially a regulated industry.  They have free reigns to do as they please (self regulation) until customers complain enough and regulations (MVNOs) come into the picture.  It is quite the balancing act.  If the big 3 can convince the government they have done enough to reduce prices, the regulation will be avoided.  Self imposed rate cuts are hard to do.  I do know that the current true north marketing campaign is pretty weak sauce.  If currently pricing is remotely close to what the government is looking for, the MVNO threat would be off the table.  

geopublic
Mayor / Maire

More Competion = Better for the consumer. 👍

@ChuckYeah wrote:

My feeling is, they built and maintain the network, so they should benefit from it.


They do indeed benefit (profit) from it. But so should we.

 

If the dinosaurs could complete with the faster, smarter, more adaptable animals which replaced them then we'd still be stuck letting big hungry T-Rex have his mighty breakfast while everybody else went hungry.

 

I'm not an economist either but I do know that when businesses are forced to compete then everyone benefits. Except the outmoded beasts which are forced to evolve or die.

 

Seems to me that a thriving populations of MVNOs exists in USA, Europe, and Asia. Regulated (or not) to various degrees. Where customers always have plenty of choices and tend to get a lot more than we do at better prices. The companies which built and maintain the networks still benefit - they just don't get to milk end-consumers - they get paid from the MVNOs - and they're forced to compete (innovate, upgrade, work) for their MVNO customers just as the MVNOs are forced to compete for their customers.

 

We have the Big Three nation-spanning oligopoly. Cartel. Syndicate. Protectionist Union. They've formed a coopetive alliance to block true competition, innovation, supply-vs-demand value. Look at phone plans across the border and asm how does this arrangement benefit Canadians?