The myth of regional monopolies

TELUSAn oft-repeated myth is that Canada’s industry is characterized by players that keep to their home turf. A press release caught my eye this morning that contradicts that view.

TELUS has teamed up with the IWK Health Care centre in Halifax to deliver a specialized portfolio of solutions to break down the walls that separate hospitalized kids from friends and family.

Created by Kids’ Health Links Foundation, Upopolis.com provides the best features of social networking for young patients who often feel disconnected when they’re in the hospital.

Kid’s Health Links and TELUS launched the program in 2007 at McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton, Ontario. Since then, it continues to expand to hospitals across Canada, including B.C. Children’s Hospital and the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

Of significance is the evidence of TELUS’ active presence in eastern Canada – Bell and Bell Aliant territory – with the service in Ottawa at CHEO and in Hamilton at Mac. TELUS has chalked up a number of significant wins in the public and financial sector.

The battle goes both ways: just look at Bell’s Olympian efforts to equip the Vancouver winter games and delivering Alberta’s Supernet.

Consumers benefit from this level of competition as well. Choice between phone companies, cable companies and various fibre owners enable the smarter smaller operators to leverage competitive wholesale arrangements for delivery of customer solutions.

7 thoughts on “The myth of regional monopolies”

  1. Sure, that's a nice PR example. But honestly, for most canadian consumers there is no choice of companies. The only choice is between 1 phone telco, and 1 cable operator. In my case it's either Bell or Videotron. Do *you* have a choice between Bell and Telus for your phone landline Mark?

    "Choice between phone companies, cable companies and various fibre owners enable the smarter smaller operators to leverage competitive wholesale arrangements for delivery of customer solutions."

    Yeah, tell that to all the smaller ISP about to get UBB shoved down their throat. Nice competition we've got here.

  2. Scaty – since you are familiar enough with the industry to use terms like UBB, I am somewhat surprised that you don't seem to be aware of choice for phone landline.

    In my area, I don't think TELUS is an option. But I have my choice of Bell, Rogers, Primus, Vonage, Yak, Comwave, Telehop, and countless others. Some are VoIP, some are using local loops.

    You are incorrect that most Canadians have just 2 choices.

    My posting also demonstrates that with inter-regional competition a reality, ISPs have a choice of backbone supplier. Not just the incumbent telco, but its cross-country competitor, on top of the cable company and other regional players.

  3. Hi Mark,

    I asked for the phone landline, as in the physical connection to your home and not your possible services. I have a dry loop for DSL and use VoIP, those services can indeed be provided by several different companies. But no matter who I choose, since the line is controlled by Bell, I'm getting UBB. Every phone call I make and receives will be counted on the quota. How nice.

    Rogers, as far as I know is a cable operator. Hence, what I said earlier. This is where there is little choice and barely any competition.

  4. End users do not have UBB and are not proposed to have UBB, according to anything I have seen. Just because your service provider has usage sensitive costs doesn't mean retail pricing to end users will be usage sensitive.

    For example, look at the history of long distance pricing. Companies may offer you unlimited calling for a set price, or bundle it into your monthly rate, but they have real usage sensitive costs. It is their problem to manage the prices they charge against their costs.

    Maybe I don't understand your point, sorry. But I think you are confused on the applicability of UBB.

  5. No company could swallow the UBB rates that are about to be imposed. In fact, that is the whole point of UBB, to modify user behaviour. While technically you are correct that there is nothing in the tariff that dictates these rates be passed on to consumers, reality dictates that they will be passed on in some form.

    What percentage of the consumer telephone or internet market do the local telephone and cable incumbents have in any given area? I would have to assume it is well above 80% nationwide, but I haven't seen any hard numbers to back that up.

    If that turns out to be true, then we have a regulatory problem, not a problem with incompetent competition. Duopolies do not serve Canada well. We need real competition.

  6. You should read some more on UBB then starting here : http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-484.htm. But this is getting "off-topic". What I was posting originally was in regard to your post about the myth of regional monoplies. You gave an example about Telus playing in the home turf of Bell. This is a cute example but honestly, who at home has a choice between 2 telco to hook them up? Regional monopolies for the home is a fact, not a myth. Corporation (big enough) and government have other options but only because they have way deeper pockets than most canadian do. So yeah, industries benefit from this, but consumers at large….sure when pigs fly.

  7. Users like me who are in the sticks only have two options. Well, okay three:

    1) Rogers portable internet
    -currently slower than molasses
    -sometimes worse than dial up (latency, packet loss, slow speed)
    2) other wireless providers
    -VERY limited
    -may not be able to reach you
    -want you in a three year contract, don't offer speeds like rogers or bell does
    -very costly
    3) dial up
    -self-explanatory

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top