I agree that absolute dollars is not a good comparison due to market size. However, Canadian companies should be looking at their own business practices rather than trying to create backlash against the government for what they themselves chose to pay for wireless spectrum. I don't have actual numbers available but I suspect that the amortized cost for spectrum is not a major factor in wireless costs in the long term.How does the per customer cost compare?
Heres part of the problem. Companies are more concerned about maximizing shareholder profits than about their clients. So who do you think is driving up the cost and who is paying to ensure happy shareholders?Exactly - per customer is the key.
And if spectrum was leased I as a shareholder would want prices to go up as you could be faced with losing spectrum and writing off millions in hardware.
I pay $65/month for unlimited Canada wide calling, unlimited data, but throttled after 15 GB, call waiting, call display & name, conference calling and 2500 minutes of call forwarding (configured for busy & no answer transfer). I'm not a new customer, as I've had a Rogers (originally Cantel) cell phone for almost 27 years. My account is post paid. When I got my first phone in Jan. 1995, it was analog, no free minutes, no texts, no nothing beyond plain phone calls. I was paying around $25/month back then, IIRC, on an employee plan, as my employer at the time was partly owned by Rogers. I later had an employee plan again at IBM and again at another company. I also recently got a Pixel 6 for $573.96 over 2 years, after discounts factored in. This is the first time I didn't pay cash up front for the phone and on one occasion I got a free phone (Motorola flip phone), Other times, I've had a significant discount on the phones I got through Rogers. For example, just after the Google Nexus 5 came out, I got one for $100! All in all, I'm satisfied, compared to what some others pay.I'd say that is reasonable and fair pricing. The problem is that it is not typical of the plans offered by the major companies and must be actively sought out. That type of plan is often offered by incumbents to lure customers onto postpaid plans that incur ridiculously high costs for overages or add-on services that are not included and subsequent upselling to overpriced plans that cost over $50. Some people get charged thousands of dollars for things like roaming, long distance or add-ons like directory service before they get the upsell.
I looked on a major wireless provider's site. The cheapest plan on the main page was over $75, with others up to almost $200. A hidden menu option showed one cheaper plan for over $30 that didn't include data. Details of charges for things like data overages were not available and are probably buried in the contract fine print provided during signup. Details about cheaper prepaid plans were also difficult to find and were a much worse deal the typical $25 or less for unlimited calls and text and limited data offered by discount competitors. Who is to blame for the high costs in this case, the federal government or the company selling the services?
Not even for being duped, but for complaining about how much they want other options and then rejecting them when they appear. That's been a problem forever: alternative providers have a huge problem gaining traction. Canadians love to say they want other options far more than they love actually using said options, and so long as that's true, this situation will never really change."Who is to blame for the high costs in this case, the federal government or the company selling the services? "
May I sugget that the customer is, for being duped? If enough seek out the cheaper plans, prices will be reduced by the majors, as happened already with Freedom's pricing.
The issue there is that it's costly and difficult to build a good network and it typically takes a long time. Reliability and and good coverage is what Canadians pay extra for, though it isn't necessary to pay high prices to get those features. The big issue for new wireless providers is that the incumbents engage in anti-competitive practices. They refuse access to or limit roaming access on their networks to new companies and favour other incumbents for providing such access. Regulation also highly favours the incumbents, especially for established international companies that want to do business in Canada. One CEO of a large international wireless company said that Canada is the most difficult country in the world where he tried to do business.Canadians love to say they want other options far more than they love actually using said options, and so long as that's true, this situation will never really change.
That's my point. Someone who rarely travels and uses wifi most of the time doesn't need a $60-$70/mo plan. If that person also has a home phone they don't even need minutes or LD most of the time. Yet when I go to a wireless web site they try to push $80/mo plans and make it difficult or impossible to find their cheapest plans. I know some of these companies have a sub-$20/mo postpaid plan with unlimited voice and/or text but it cannot be found on their websites. If you want a even small amount of data the price more than doubles, even if you don't use it.Being at home and using wifi for data most of the time, it's a waste right now really.
How about directory assistance, which is free from some carriers in other countries, but now costs over $4 per use in Canada? How about accessing data from another country? I know and have heard of people who have received thousand dollar bills, without warnings, without notifications for using these services. Canadian carriers don't care about the hardship caused as long as they can make money from things buried deep in the fine print. I also know of someone who received high bills while in a Canadian carrier dead zone and got connected to a US carrier from within Canada.Given I have unlimited calling and data, it's hard to imagine what charge I'd be hit with.