MTS rate regulation? - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #1 of 13 (permalink) Old 2008-07-25, 01:30 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 223
MTS rate regulation?

Having just switched to Shaw phone, MTS asked me why I switched which was the lower price and availability of basic service from Shaw.

In the conversation, the CSR said MTS doesn't want to charge so much but are forced to by regulations, and that even the $7 for call display is forced upon them. I find this hard to believe. Is it true?

Andy K.
andyk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 13 (permalink) Old 2008-07-25, 05:43 PM
Premium Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Winnipeg with MTS Ultimate TV, MTS Lightning 25 & VOIP Phone Service.
Posts: 3,309
I don't know the exact answer, but I was always told to believe that the basic line (25.25- may be less now, it was that when I was on MTS in 2006) was regulated and any other optional service such as Caller ID was at the price MTS wanted to set.

- User 'K from Canada' on the MTS Community Forums
- User '7825' on the Shaw Community Forums
- I do NOT work for Shaw or have any connections to the company
shawguy is offline  
post #3 of 13 (permalink) Old 2008-07-25, 07:10 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 4,846
I don't think that comment is true. What is true is that up until recently Telco's were not allowed to reduce their prices to compete with other providers. Now when you decide to switch to Shaw, the Telco's will magically try and match the Shaw price.
Nanuuk is offline  
 
post #4 of 13 (permalink) Old 2008-07-26, 09:31 AM
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 70
http://mts.ca/tariffs/pdf/GeneralItem2142.pdf

It's true. The CRTC does regulate the price of Call Display for MTS.
TheeAlien is offline  
post #5 of 13 (permalink) Old 2008-07-27, 12:49 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 4,846
Well you learn something new everyday. Thanks! If they don't change it Shaw and other providers will eat their lunch going forward.
Nanuuk is offline  
post #6 of 13 (permalink) Old 2008-07-27, 01:59 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 961
The CRTC does regulate the prices for ILEC's.
Almost any price change that the ILEC wants to make for services, needs to pass through the CRTC, even discounts pertaining to Wireline services.
The the new regulations on forborne vs non-forborne, this has loosened up a bit, but not a whole lot.
Examples of regulated services:
touch tone
wireline base cost
services such as call display, visual cal waiting etc.
packages that include above services such as bundles (the wireline portion would be regulated, the internet portion would not)


Nem, who things that regulation of services done to ensure fairness of competition, is an oxymoron.

The preceding post and all opinions expressed are solely those of the poster and do not reflect the opinions of any other person or business
Nemnoch is offline  
post #7 of 13 (permalink) Old 2008-07-30, 09:09 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Uxbridge, ON
Posts: 3,601
That tariff is published by MTS, which the CRTC then approves. I believe that the companies would be required to file a new tariff if they wanted to decrease the price of their features, but they would not be prevented from doing so by the CRTC. So sure it has to pass through the CRTC but when it comes to features, the ILECs are raping you because they can - it's highly profitable.
travisc is offline  
post #8 of 13 (permalink) Old 2008-07-30, 07:38 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Thornhill, ON
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by travisc View Post
That tariff is published by MTS, which the CRTC then approves. I believe that the companies would be required to file a new tariff if they wanted to decrease the price of their features, but they would not be prevented from doing so by the CRTC. So sure it has to pass through the CRTC but when it comes to features, the ILECs are raping you because they can - it's highly profitable.
Bell and its confreres love to blame everything on the CRTC, when the truth is they could lower their prices and simplify their offerings any day by filing a new tarif, as you say. The point of regulation was to prevent a telco from selling services at a loss so as to force competitors out of business. As long as they can show the tarif reflects the cost of offering the service, the CRTC would have no reason to deny the application to lower a fee. But where would be the profit on that? LOL
outinthornhill is offline  
post #9 of 13 (permalink) Old 2008-07-30, 08:01 PM
.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, ON
Posts: 6,296
Talking

The telcos only brought this on themselves. For years, when they had a monopoly, they pushed for price increases on popular options in order to pad the bottom line. I remember when Call Display went from $5 to $6 and on up to $8. Now they are stuck with it and competitors sell Call Display for $3, which is a lot more reasonable. I feel no pity for the poor telcos. IMHO, they should be refunding the money they overcharged Canadians for Call Display and similar services.
I_Want_My_HDTV is offline  
post #10 of 13 (permalink) Old 2008-08-04, 05:58 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 961
Quote:
Bell and its confreres love to blame everything on the CRTC, when the truth is they could lower their prices and simplify their offerings any day by filing a new tarif, as you say. The point of regulation was to prevent a telco from selling services at a loss so as to force competitors out of business. As long as they can show the tarif reflects the cost of offering the service, the CRTC would have no reason to deny the application to lower a fee. But where would be the profit on that? LOL
Actually, they have lowered their prices and in a great many cases are lower than Rogers and other ILEC's.
Even changing the price to a lower price point still has to be run by the CRTC and the same goes for raising any prices. Then the CRTC has to review etc and allow time for ILEC's to post any issues with the price decreases etc, then give final go ahead.
It is by no means a short legal process.
Perhaps instead of ranting against Bell and other CLEC's, you should look into the legal hoops they need to jump through in order to lower the price of any regulated services.

Quote:
I remember when Call Display went from $5 to $6 and on up to $8.
Call display went from $5 to $6 when they added the 'Name' portion of 'Name and Number Display'. At the $5 price point it was simply 'number' display only.
The last price increase for Call Display with Name and Number was close to 8 years ago and the price has not increased since.
8 years ago a loaf of white bread was 99 cents, now it's $1.79. That's almost an 80% increase. As the cost of living goes up, so do some services and products, it's a fact of life.
Yes, other companies have call display for $3, but the product doesn't work (as you can see from other forums and threads, and other companies aren't aren't regulated. I also believe in a lot of cases, you are tied to a contract and or need to take a package deal.
You can get Call Display for free, in a package with Bell and most ILEC's.

Nem, who thinks people should probably quote all the facts, instead of ones that just support their arguments.

The preceding post and all opinions expressed are solely those of the poster and do not reflect the opinions of any other person or business
Nemnoch is offline  
post #11 of 13 (permalink) Old 2008-08-05, 09:48 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Uxbridge, ON
Posts: 3,601
Why would the price of these services need to go up, nemnoch? The cost to produce that loaf of bread has increased, and we can accept that increase to some extent. But the equipment needed to run the call display service was installed long ago, and there is no obvious cost otherwise applicable to that service - so any increase to that rate is really just a money grab.

And say what you will about the process to apply to the CRTC for a rate change, I strongly doubt that it would be a long and arduous fight to get permission to decrease the rates for the smart touch services. They don't do it because it's extremely profitable, pure and simple.
travisc is offline  
post #12 of 13 (permalink) Old 2008-08-05, 11:01 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 961
Travisc, as an example, it took almost a year for the Bundle From Bell to be approved by the CRTC.
The process is long and the ILEC's fight any decrease in price on regulated service that Bell or any of the LEC's propose using the usual 'it will give them an unfair advantage'. The CRTC has to listen to both sides while the lawyers talk legal jargon, and then they make their decision.
I believe this example and others can be found on the CRTC website.

Unfortunately, you're mistaken about the cost of providing services not going up. As the inflation makes things cost more, so does providing wages, replacing old lines, testing to ensure the service works on new tech, etc, etc.
All of these things cause the price of services to go up, regardles of who provides the service.
It's the nature of inflation.

Nem, who wishes he could still get a good loaf of bread for under a dollar

The preceding post and all opinions expressed are solely those of the poster and do not reflect the opinions of any other person or business
Nemnoch is offline  
post #13 of 13 (permalink) Old 2008-08-06, 10:04 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Uxbridge, ON
Posts: 3,601
The bundle is a completely different animal than Smart Touch services. There has always been a competitive issue around Bell being able to bundle landline with their other portfolio of services.

I can't find any applications to the CRTC for rate changes in the Smart Touch services since roughly 2003-2004... Why is that, anyone know? Did the process change? And it looks like changes were typically approved in a month or so - hardly an arduous process for Bell to go through.

I accept that there are some minimal costs that you could argue apply to the Smart Touch services, and those costs will increase just like everything else does. But you cannot compare it to a loaf of bread, whose costs typically would include raw materials, production, packaging and delivery. The majority of the cost for something like call display would be in equipment that has long since been depreciated. Maybe there's a tech who watches over some equipment somewhere, and that's about it. Your variable costs are minimal, your margin is massive.

Getting back to what I think is the original point, Bell's makes a huge profit in Smart Touch services, could reduce the rates if it so chose, but wants to hang on to a cash cow since their landline revenues and profits are eroding.
travisc is offline  
Reply

Tags
mts home phone

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome