Tefficient has released a new report on global wireless market that makes it clear that Canada is a global outlier (or leader if you are a telecom executive). Simply put, no one has carriers that generate more revenue with less usage per SIM than Canada.
Tefficient ARPU Data Usage, https://tefficient.com/unlimited-moves-the-needle-but-its-when-mobile-addresses-slow-fixed-internet-that-something-happens/
It is difficult to overstate how much the lack of wireless competitiveness is holding back the Canadian market. With the CRTC refusing to take act and carriers continuing to increase fees (particularly on overage fees that generate more than a billion in revenue per year), it falls to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Minister Navdeep Bains to recognize that longstanding failed Canadian wireless policies must change.
What more evidence is needed to convince the government and CRTC that Canada needs a massive influx of foreign telecom competitors?
Here are two examples of how much more Canadians pay than do customers anywhere else in the world.
It costs me $12 a month for unlimited calls to the U.S. on Rogers. But a colleague in the States pays Verizon the equivalent of CDN$4 per month to make unlimited calls to Canada. Huh?
Likewise, I pay $80 a month for voice and data service, with a limit on how much data I can use before hitting overage charges. This same colleague pays 40-percent less and has unlimited data.
Bell, Rogers, Telus and Shaw have been allowed to pick the pockets of their customers long enough. I’ve thought of getting a U.S. number in Buffalo, pay the $4 a month for unlimited calls to Canada, and telling Rogers to shove it.
Disgusting greed.
Can you get a US phone provider without having US Citizenship?
Yes, but you still need internet to do it. And the cost of having a VOIP phone service is a pittance compared to the internet costs you must endure to have it function. Canadian companies “appear” to collude in orders to keep those prices as high as possible.
If one has a very high price and low usage, the economics 101 suggests that more income can be generated if one lowers the price toward the equilibrium point of the supply and demand curves.
In turn, that means someone’s leaving money on the table.
How else are these companies able to pay executives this kind of money, buy stadiums, buy teams attempt to block the internet with money and influence… and on and on. Corrupt and rotten to their core. The only way out is foreign uninhibited competition and now, not studied for 10 years NOW!
The answer is very simple. Consumers need to pay politicians more than the carriers do. You get the government you pay for. Send the Liberals $100/month per person. It’ll take time but you’ll get results. Remember, money talks, and nothing else goes.
Don’t you mean send it to the PC’s? They’re the ones that want privatization of everything, maximize profits.
Lib’s are good with government regulations, lobbiests love the PC’s.
To me this is one more reason to protect the internet from corporate interests since it’s the last communications channel available to the public that isn’t completely conquered by adverse interests.
You do realize what a ridiculous statement this is, right? You think google and facebook are not adverse interests? How about some of the stuff that’s found on the Internet (in the sense of “communications channel available to the public”): Russian bots convincing people that Hillary Clinton runs a pedophile ring out of a pizza joint in Washington, anyone? Breitbart news? These are good things, because they make use of a communications channel available to the public??
You have a point but if bell and rogers get their way it will be locked down for canadians and all you will see is re-runs of “littlest hobo” the remake ad nauseam if you are lucky, that is after the daily how great bell and rogers is for everyone propaganda.
Just playing devil’s advocate here: what that chart doesn’t take into account is Canada’s unique geography. Our carriers have to build and maintain more towers than any other country on that chart. Our population is relatively small and spread out. Also, and this is hearsay from my colleagues from Europe and the UK, but they tell me that while we pay more, we get better and more consistent coverage than they’re used to back home.
Now, does this equate to us having to pay double, or even triple in some cases? No. But it’s also not reasonable to do a direct comparison to the USA or Europe. It’s apples and oranges
How do you explain the costs in Australia? They have a lower population density than Canada, AND their rates are much closer to the median.
Also, something like 75 percent of Canadians live within 100 miles of the border. To just create a communications network that covers this area would be hugely impactful and help begin driving average prices down.
Sounds like they could spend some of that money they use to buy stadiums, rinks, teams and all other sort of nonsense besides upgrades sure. If they had reasonably affordable internet in say, north bay, new liskeard maybe Timmins I’d say maybe. But no they do not and the charge an outrageous amount of money for squat as far as their counterparts abroad.
I’d like to see this chart reworked such that is shows price / square kilometer of area covered.
I urge a study across the board about CDNS being gouged, from Gas, Glasses ($400 vrs $10 in USA), Generics (Costco Kickbacks) Hearing Aids, Produce to Phones Bills. CDNs are being constantly taken advantage of by big business.
Ponder for a moment that fact that the CRTC is loaded with ex executives and lawyers from Bell, Rogers, and Telus.
Nothing says dirty little “public servants” like….
Absolutely! And remember that the CRTC collects license fees per radio/transmitter/site/subscriber/interconnect etc. These are a very major expenses for operators. The CRTC has no interest in reducing rates.
Pingback: New The State of Canadian Wireless in One Chart: No One Has Carriers That Generate More Revenue With Less Usage – Stephen's Lighthouse
Absolutely! And remember that the CRTC collects license fees per radio/transmitter/site/subscriber/interconnect etc. These are a very major expenses for operators. The CRTC has no interest in reducing rates.
Pingback: Telus vs. Telus: Who Do You Believe on Wireless Competition in Canada? - Michael Geist
Content and charts were fascinating