[audioguy_on_ca]

Teksavvy shouldn’t care, just like the government: the economy is in great shape, jobs are plentiful and we are awash in money out here. They can raise rates to keep up with all of that: people will be anxiously throwing increasing amounts of money at them, in fact.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tridus]

Yet another failure by the CRTC. As usual, the big telecom lobbyists that work there delivered for who they actually work for.

If the Liberal Government's claim to want more competition in telecom is anything other than hot air, they must reverse this and fire Ian Scott. That's the bare minimum required.

 

[Dr.Dave]

TekSavvy is Not Pleased. The Liberal government must fire CRTC chair Ian Scott

TekSavvy is playing "Shoot the messenger." They are well aware that the reason the CRTC reversed its 2019 decision is that the Liberal government told them in 2019:

"Order in Council P.C. 2016-332 of May 10, 2016, the Governor in Council noted that a wholesale services framework that achieves improved consumer choice and competition, further investment in high-quality networks, innovative service offerings and reasonable prices for consumers"

"the Governor in Council considers that the final rates set by the decision do not, in all instances, appropriately balance the objectives of the wholesale services framework recognized in Order in Council P.C. 2016-332 of May 10, 2016 and that they will, in some instances, undermine investment in high-quality networks"

Order in Council responding to petitions to the Governor in Council concerning Telecom Order CRTC 2019-288 - Canada.ca

The Governor in Council has responded to petitions, pursuant to subsection 12(1) of the Telecommunications Act, concerning the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)’s Telecom Order CRTC 2019-288.

www.canada.ca

So the CRTC did what they they were told and reverted to the 2016 rates with a few minor tweaks. An Order in Council is a decision by the entire federal cabinet, not just one individual minister.

 

[ExDilbert]

It sounds like trickle down theory. The premise being, 'Give the incumbents more money and they will lower prices, invest in better infrastructure and improve customer service.' That's already been disproven a hundred times over in today's business climate. The only thing that lowers prices is competition from lower priced service providers. Where competition to existing providers is imminent or existing, incumbents magically find the money to invest in new infrastructure and improve service. Giving them more money just results in them buying back stock to give major stockholders more control, higher stock prices, bigger dividends and management bonuses, and reduction in competition due to expansion by buying up competitors.

 

[audioguy_on_ca]

TekSavvy is playing "Shoot the messenger." They are well aware that the reason the CRTC reversed its 2019 decision is that the Liberal government told them in 2019:

"Order in Council P.C. 2016-332 of May 10, 2016, the Governor in Council noted that a wholesale services framework that achieves improved consumer choice and competition, further investment in high-quality networks, innovative service offerings and reasonable prices for consumers"

"the Governor in Council considers that the final rates set by the decision do not, in all instances, appropriately balance the objectives of the wholesale services framework recognized in Order in Council P.C. 2016-332 of May 10, 2016 and that they will, in some instances, undermine investment in high-quality networks"

Order in Council responding to petitions to the Governor in Council concerning Telecom Order CRTC 2019-288 - Canada.ca

The Governor in Council has responded to petitions, pursuant to subsection 12(1) of the Telecommunications Act, concerning the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)’s Telecom Order CRTC 2019-288.

www.canada.ca

So the CRTC did what they they were told and reverted to the 2016 rates with a few minor tweaks. An Order in Council is a decision by the entire federal cabinet, not just one individual minister.

Yet another challenge to the electorate. One of these days, we’ll take them up on it…if the opposition can ever get its collective act together. (I’d prefer to see a minority govt, with a much more adversarial opposition)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NeilN]

So the CRTC did what they they were told and reverted to the 2016 rates with a few minor tweaks. An Order in Council is a decision by the entire federal cabinet, not just one individual minister.

Your grasp of bureaucratese may be stronger than mine but:

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry, pursuant to subsection 12(1) of the Telecommunications Act declines to vary, rescind or refer back for reconsideration Telecom Order CRTC 2019-288.

seems to indicate that the CRTC was not told anything specifically but instead was to address the government's concern. They could have offered a fig leaf to the lobbying telcos, saying "concern addressed". If the government didn't like it then they could have varied, rescinded, or referred back the order and directly taken the heat for it. The CRTC is (supposedly) an independent public authority and should not be acting as a shield for any government.

 

[LONSat]

If the CRTC only did the requisite work of their second examination it speaks to their utter incompetence and the whole of the board must resign. By their own words it's puts into question every decision they have made in the past several years because now it can be argued they did not do the requisite work. There is nothing the current board of the CRTC can do to salvage their decision making reputation. The decision and wording of speaks to their abject failure and lack of competence on all regulatory matters. If they will not resign the government must replace them.

 

[Jorgek]

And the score is, big fat cat corporations winners, middle class (if any left) big fat ZERO!

 

[ExDilbert]

A lot needs to be fixed with current internet and wireless pricing structures. People are forced to overpay for services they do not need, either because cheaper plans are not offered or penalties for overuse of certain features on cheaper plans amount to punitive gouging by the incumbents. I've seen and heard of people being charged thousands of dollars for going over plan limits or using features that are not included. The providers don't bother to send warnings or cap charges at reasonable levels. They just let the charges pile up to levels that could cause bankruptcy for people on limited incomes and then send the bill. There is often no remedy because the government doesn't seem to be willing to stop the abuse. It's not like the customers broke the law but are treated as if they did. They just accidentally triggered the fine print in an abusive consumer contract. Such abuses would not be allowed in most other industries.

 

[audioguy_on_ca]

It’s a have or have not delineation, all courtesy of your elected leaders…leaders, who -as I recall- promised better access and more affordable prices. Do we allow them to remain hypocrites, or do we challenge them on the promises they made to secure office? Are they, for instance, going to permit all internet charges to be claimed as a write off on personal income taxes? (That would be an interesting end run - we would all be tripping over ourselves to pay more, and we would build out the networks faster - as long as profits are regulated)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tridus]

Why would we be tripping over ourselves to pay more? A tax deduction doesn't get you back 100% of the money you spend. All that would be is a subsidy for oligarchs paid for by taxpayers.

If we want to go that route, we should nationalize the infrastructure outright and cut them out of the picture.

 

[audioguy_on_ca]

Politicos would never do that to their bestest friends , take money away from them (and themselves) like that. We need more, stronger competition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NeilN]

If we want to go that route, we should nationalize the infrastructure outright and cut them out of the picture.

Be careful what you wish for. We'd wind up with Internet content regulated by the CRTC and extra fees going to their lobbyist friends and towards subsidizing government services. Email tax, anyone?