Earlier this week, a report from the Competition Bureau said some cell plans were costlier after the Rogers-Shaw merger. This story also mentioned a plan by the federal NDP to summon the executives of the ‘Big 3’ telcos in Canada to speak on phone pricing and affordability.
Now, on Wednesday, in a unanimous vote, Members of Parliament have called for the CEOs of Rogers, Telus and Bell to testify at a federal committee, which is examining the accessibility and affordability of wireless and broadband services across the nation.
During a meeting of the House of Commons industry committee on Wednesday, a motion introduced by NDP MP Don Davies specifically requested the presence of Tony Staffieri, Darren Entwistle and Mirko Bibic—the CEOs of Rogers, Telus and Bell, respectively.
MPs want them to answer questions regarding the services provided by their companies. This action follows an earlier invitation to these executives, along with Quebecor CEO Pierre Karl Péladeau, to discuss the same issues.
While Péladeau has already responded to the committee’s call earlier this month, replacements representing the incumbent telecom firms were present at Wednesday’s meeting. Davies said these were “not the ones that this committee requested appear,” reports The Canadian Press.
The committee’s concerns revolve around the high costs of cellphone and internet services in Canada, again hinting that Canadians are paying way more than other nations for similar services.
These CEOs appearing in front of MPs makes for a good show, but it won’t bring down cellphone or internet pricing. The only way to do that is to increase competition. That’s what we’re seeing with Freedom Mobile’s aggressive Canada-US plans, which have finally been matched by Telus on its prepaid carrier Public Mobile. This marks the first of the ‘Big 3’ to match Freedom’s $34/50GB Canada-US plan.
Want to see more of our stories on Google?
P.S. Want to keep this site truly independent? Support us by buying us a beer, treating us to a coffee, or shopping through Amazon here. Links in this post are affiliate links, so we earn a tiny commission at no charge to you. Thanks for supporting independent Canadian media!
Freeedom mobile while owned by Telus isn’t telusnitself. doesn’t count
Freedom isn’t owned by Telus, it is owned by Quebecor’s ‘Videotron’ and was acquired from Rogers. Rogers had to part with Freedom as part of the Gov’ts stipulation to clear the way to purchase Shaw.
Telus owns Public Mobile .
Competition is allowing new entrants to build their own network. Forcing existing incumbents to give away part of their investments (access to their networks) to smaller players that invested 0$ and risked nothing to compete at discount is not real competition… it’s just discouraging new investment and slowing growth and innovation.
We’ve never had real competition in Canada by any definition. The incumbents were granted monopolies for decades, followed by protected duopolies.
Given the massive assistance and head start they were gifted, it’s not unfair to expect others to get a similar leg up.
I don’t disagree with you… what I’m saying is that forcing them to give away part of their infrastructure to smaller players is not the best way to induce competition. The government should facilitate and help others to build their own networks.
They did try. We had the new entrants. wind, mobi and public. The problem is that it’s impossible to invest the levels of money needed now while trying to generate revenue in the face of the incumbent giants.
What you’re calling for is for the gov to take steps to make more new carriers able to succeed. I agree. One of the best resources the gov can offer is access to the infrastructure we helped pay for and build out. We, Canadians, provided everything the incumbents needed to succeed. Seems only fair and more than justified to expect some payback, like access that infrastructure to give a leg up to others we now want to help.
This would be similar to gov paying for the advantages schooling for a med student and expecting that dr to provided services to Canadians for a period of time (before they move to the US). If you took the handout, don’t expect it was a complete freebie. There should be strings attached.
So now I know why certain flanker brands has lowered its Can-US roaming plan to $34 so that they can justify it in their meeting. After meeting, having a dinner together the bill will be paid by consumers. All in the end people are always losing in the long run. Be it telecom,groceries,airlines, housing, electing,etc . The more I stay here the more I want to go back to my country. Just sharing my opinion.
Exactly! I think they introduced the CAN/US plans just to say “Look here, we have affordable plans!” Only to turn around and then remove the plans after some greasing their way.
“cell plans were costlier after the Rogers-Shaw merger”
Insert surprised Pikachu face here