Can I Get Cell Service In Canada

Canadians benefit from high-quality cell phone networks that offer good coverage and speeds, but we pay considerably more than other countries for the same level of service.
Canadians pay 20% more than Americans and 170% more than than Australians on their jail cell telephone plans on boilerplate. For unlimited talk & text and 2 GB of data, we spend an boilerplate of $74/month, compared to $threescore/month in the US and $22/month in Australia. For 5 GB, we spend $87, compared to $63 in the United states of america and $27 in Commonwealth of australia.
The Big 3 Canadian telecom companies (Bell, Rogers and Telus) own 90% of the market and charge higher prices due to a lack of competition.
The lack of contest is due to a broad diversity of factors including the industry's high barrier to entry, restricted foreign investment, limited access to the wireless spectrum, potential for price coordination and history of privatization and acquisitions.
The national telecom companies have a go-to list of reasons why prices are high, commissioning their own studies to try and disprove the cost disparity past pointing to the size of Canada, how much they've invested, and trying to ignominy independent studies – those not paid for by Canadian telecoms – past claiming their methods are flawed.
Yr after year, the federal regime studies the industry, acknowledges that prices are high, commits to new approaches, directs the CRTC to prioritize the consumer, yet they capitulate when information technology comes fourth dimension to assert their potency and decide in favour of consumers. The deportment taken by the government and CRTC over the years to address industry contest, affordability and consumer choice take brought almost slow, impermanent or even regressive progress.

Are cell phone plans expensive in Canada?

Ask whatever Canadian and they'll likely tell you: yes – nosotros pay more than for our mobile service than other countries – peculiarly for data. Only how much more do we actually pay compared to similar countries such equally the US and Australia?

Despite using different methodologies and different datasets, all of these studies betoken to a similar and consistent conclusion: Canada has higher retail prices.

Average prison cell phone bill in Canada vs other countries
According to Sweden-based Tefficient
According to Finland-based Rewheel Research
According to studies commissioned by the Canadian regime
According to the US Federal Communications Committee (FCC)
According to Korean government-funded inquiry

Average jail cell phone bill in Canada vs other countries

For reference, the average Canadian uses a little over 2GB per calendar month, but this number is likely artificially low due to higher data plans not being financially realistic for many Canadians. We are conditioned to think twice before opening a YouTube video, know we can't watch much Netflix and end upward hitting our limit or going over because we left our Spotify on. We would all like to be using much more – I know I would.

For comparison, mobile customers in Finland had the highest average usage at 23.5 GB of data per calendar month, according to a 2019 study past Tefficient, a Swedish consultancy that tracks 116 operators effectually the world. In Austria, monthly data consumption was effectually 22 GB per calendar month and in Taiwan it is 17GB. Americans utilize eight.5 GB per month. Canada is falling backside.

Unlimited data plans

In September 2019, the Big iii significantly revised their pricing approach past introducing new 'unlimited' data plans at lower prices compared to their previous large data plans and dropping their more affordable plans with lower data caps – leaving them to their flanker brands.

No cap plans are a pace in the right management and should help with the usage and affordability of mobile data in Canada.

Bell, Rogers, Telus and Freedom and all offering 'unlimited' data plans. Still, there is withal a hidden soft data cap after which your speed is throttled to 256 kbps to 512 kbps until your bill rolls over into the next month. For reference, 512 kbps is fast enough to:

load a mobile web page in 7 seconds.
play 360p YouTube videos after a few seconds of buffering.
stream a vocal on Spotify later a few seconds of buffering.
load Instagram pictures in 5 to x seconds.

If y'all demand more 10GB per calendar month, an unlimited information program is worth considering.

The following studies confirm what Canadians already know:

Report by Sweden-based Tefficient

In 2018, their report showed that Canadian mobile operators drive the highest revenues per gigabyte in the world amid a subscriber base that uses fiddling data.

"Our country analysis shows that mobile customers in Canada pay very much for the data they consume."
Tefficient

However, in 2019, Canada is missing from their reports.

Why?

Due to the:

"fact that the data is reported so late for Canada (and since none of the carriers report data traffic or usage) we aren't besides interested in incorporating Canada in our analyses going frontward,"

"another reason is the workload created when lobbyists try to shoot down the brownie of the whole report because they don't like to see Canada presented as an outlier. Nosotros have no business organization in Canada and have, dissimilar lobbyists, no agenda."
Fredrik Jungermann, founder of Tefficient on Canadian telecom pricing data (emphasis ours)

CRTC data published with a yr's filibuster

The CRTC's 2019 Communications Monitoring Written report is based completely on 2018 information and was published on January 21, 2020 – a full year after the reported information was current.

Tefficient will include Canada in upcoming reports – if CRTC information is published with less than a year's filibuster. In our upcoming 1H 2019 study we cover 42 countries. 21 of these accept to date reported Q1/1H 2019 information. xl reported 2018 information. 2 nonetheless on 2017 – Canada & Switzerland.
— tefficient 🚥 (@tefficient) October v, 2019

Report by Finland-based Rewheel Enquiry

In their April 2019 written report Canada's 4G wireless information is ranked as one of the near expensive compared to other countries in the developed world that take multiple network operators. Median prices per GB are considerably higher than in competitive large European markets with 4 carriers or the very competitive 5 carrier market in Israel.

In response, Telus commissioned its ain study which concluded that the Rewheel report is "unrealistic" and required a "complete redesign" because it assumes customers simply care near price and non about factors like quality or network coverage.

They also argued that it doesn't take into account factors like deploying a network in a large country, differences in regulatory regimes or purchasing power parity, and doesn't include family and prepaid plans.

Their 2020 study ranked Telus, Bell, and Rogers as the 1st, 2nd, and tertiary most expensive amongst 168 wireless carriers operating in 48 countries around the world.

In their 2021 written report "Is Canada the most expensive wireless market in the globe?", they institute that the minimum monthly toll for a smartphone program that includes 20GB in Canada is the highest among 51 European, American, Asia Pacific, Middle E and African countries. Consumers in Canada pay 7x more every month than consumers in France for 20 GB.

Studies commissioned by the Canadian government

The 12th (2019) edition of the toll comparing study commissioned by ISED showed that while Canadian wireless programme prices have continued to decrease, prices connected to exist higher than compared to G7 countries (US, United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, France, Italy, Federal republic of germany, Japan) and Australia. The 2018 edition indicated that prices in each basket were either the highest or second-highest and at to the lowest degree double that of Australia.

When you focus in on mobile internet, it paints a slightly different picture. Canada's average prices are comparable to the United states of america and Nihon, simply noticeably higher than all other countries:

Prices accept fallen slightly at the two-5 GB level since 2010, but not as apace equally other G7 countries. Prices remained brackish at the 5-10 GB and 10 GB+ levels since 2012 and 2016 respectively (like to the US) while other countries' prices have decreased considerably.

In response, Telus deputed its ain report claiming that the written report was flawed. It ended that "communications services in Canada are cheaper than the prices foreign providers would accuse for the same plans." The written report criticised the price comparisons because the plans didn't have the verbal same offerings. For example, it said it wasn't fair to compare a more than expensive 3 GB programme in Canada against a cheaper two GB programme in the U.South.

They are likely referring to how mobile internet services were grouped into 3 data baskets for comparison that stand for a typical Canadian's depression, "average" and high usage:

Level 1: 2 to v GB (low)
Level 2: 5 to ten GB (heart)
Level 3 10+ GB (high)

It's true that it would exist ideal to break things down fifty-fifty further by using 5 service baskets instead of 3 equally they did to compare wireless plans, however they did not contend that doing so would lead to different results.

They likewise argued that it doesn't take into business relationship factors similar geography, labour costs, and the weather to ensure a "normalized" cost for wireless services.

Written report past the US Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)

Their 2018 report looked into international retail prices using an econometric model to right for the potential furnishings of country-level differences in costs, demographics, and network quality. The written report found that Canada had some of the almost expensive retail prices in the 29 OECD countries surveyed. These two studies suggest that it is the lack of competition that drives Canadian retail prices to be amongst the highest in the world, and not other factors such equally income, network costs, or network quality.

Korean government-funded study published in the periodical Telecommunication Policy

In their 2019 study, "Quality-adapted international price comparisons of mobile telecommunications services,"Telecommunication Policy, Seong Hun Yun, Yongjae Kim, and Minki Kim found that afterwards decision-making for factors other than contest (such as network quality), prices in Toronto are the highest or 2nd highest among the 12 major cities analyzed for the study, which are located in 10 countries (i.e. all G7 countries plus Australia, Espana, and Sweden).

Why plans are expensive according to telecoms

Canada's low population density
Pinnacle "world-class" network operation
Large infrastructure investments
"They're affordable"
"Prices are decreasing"

Low population density

Telecom companies ofttimes fence that Canada is a vast land and what we're paying is simply the cost of their comprehensive coverage.

Canada does accept one of the lowest population densities in the earth at 4 people per kmⁱⁱ, but it's similar to that of Australia: 3.ii/km².

Even so, comparisons to other countries are ofttimes unfair because the population is quite concentrated and there are vast expanses of unpopulated land. This goes for Commonwealth of australia as well.

Taking a look at Bell's coverage map for case, their LTE coverage covers less than a third (28.8%) of Canada'southward landmass (28.eight% for Telus, 19.nine% for Rogers) which they confirmed reaches 99% of the Canadian population in their 2019 annual study.

Co-ordinate to data in a 2018 written report past the Montreal Economical Institute (MEI), Commonwealth of australia has slightly greater geographical challenges than Canada after adjusting for network coverage in Canada (twenty%) and Australia (31%), but still offered cheaper plans across the board equally outlined in a higher place.

Size of country and population density alone do not explicate Canada's loftier rates.

Top performance

Another common response from the Large three is that Canada's networks provide some of the best coverage and speeds in the world.

Speeds in Canada exercise compare very favourably with speeds in other OECD countries. two of the 3 nationwide networks run on 4G-LTE networks exclusively and reach 99% of Canada'due south population. Opensignal ranked Canada second for mobile network speed after Due south Korea and Speedtest ranks us 8th.

Large investments

Telecom companies also oft cite how much they have to invest in their networks to go along them cutting border.

From 1987 to April, 2019, Canada's network operators have invested over $70 billion in building wireless networks – over $50 billion in infrastructure, $17.6 billion on spectrum acquisition, and the rest on annual license fees.

Between 2010 and 2016, Canadian companies invested on average $78 per connection, less than the average of $97 in the United states. Based on 2016 Bank of America Merill Lynch data, Canada spent $67.48 per wireless subscriber – nigh out of the G7 countries and like to $67.24 per subscriber by the US.

Nonetheless, Commonwealth of australia invested more per capita on telecommunication services betwixt 2005 and 2015 and as of 2018, had faster network speeds and lower prices.

Information technology is estimated that, between 2020 and 2026, $26 billion will be spent in deploying 5G infrastructure in Canada. Canadian companies spent $iii.v billion on 5G wireless spectrum in 2019 and will likely spend fifty-fifty more than in the 2021 auction. Telus has committing to spending $40 billion over the next iii years in critical technology components to back up the ringlet out of 5G, Bell and Rogers programme to spend $4 billion and $2.9 billion respectively over the class of 2020 lone.

After this flurry of investment, only fourth dimension will tell how 5G phone plan prices compare.

"They're affordable"

"Canadians spend less on wireless than Americans. Information technology'southward a myth that Canadians pay some of the highest wireless prices in the earth. The average Canadian household spends just 1.6% of their disposable income on wireless versus 2.6% in the United states. – PWC Canada."

Industry regulator Ad Standards Canada found that this statement, in a full-page Telus paper ad published in Quebec independent misleading claims as information technology mixed upward considerations of affordability and toll to give the impression wireless prices were lower in Canada than other countries.

The study did support the claims that Canadians spend a smaller per centum of their disposable income and a lower total corporeality on their phone plans than Americans, it did non support back the claim that prices are lower in Canada compared to the world.

Canadians being able to afford something doesn't necessarily make it a good deal.

And the "myth" merits is all the same on their website with the 2d function revised:

"They should be expensive"

In a 2013 blog post that has since been taken down, Ted Woodhead, the visitor'southward Senior Vice President of Federal Government and Regulatory Affairs said:

"When y'all consider our enormous investment, challenging geography, thin population and outstanding networks Canada really SHOULD be the well-nigh expensive country for wireless service in the OECD, just we're non," "That's a great success story nosotros should be celebrating."
Ted Woodhead, Telus Senior Vice President of Federal Government and Regulatory Affairs

"Prices are decreasing"

A 2020 web log postal service on the Rogers Policy & Regulatory blog by the aforementioned Ted Woodhead now Senior Vice President, Regulatory said that by dividing Rogers, Fido and chatr revenue by data traffic to decide price per GB [used], you tin run into that the cost per GB [used] – has declined over 50% in the concluding five years and nearly 70% since 2013.

"Most coverage of this issue is missing primal facts and provides an inaccurate view of the situation, suggesting that the cost of wireless service in Canada, peculiarly data, remains high and unchanging. In fact, the contrary is true. Wireless prices are declining, and consumers are receiving better value."
Ted Woodhead, Rogers Senior Vice President, Regulatory

Notwithstanding, this does non hateful that plans (bodily nib payments) are getting cheaper or more affordable. They have been offering more information for the same or similar plan prices, and then yous'll still pay a hefty fee if you desire a plan with a useful amount of data.

For example, for unlimited talk and text and 4G data speed at Koodo in Nov 2020, the minimum monthly cost started at $50.85 (incl. tax) or $610.xx per year. In May 2022, the entry level price is around $42.38 (incl. tax) or $508.50 per year:

Koodo, Nov 2020

Information	Price	Toll per GB
2 GB	$45	$22.50
4 GB	$fifty	$12.l
6 GB	$55	$ix.17
8 GB	$sixty	$7.50
10 GB	$75	$7.fifty

Koodo, May 2022

Data	Price	Price per GB
two GB	$37.50	$18.75
4 GB	$41.25	$x.31
half dozen GB	$45	$vii.l
viii GB	$55	$vi.88
10 GB	$threescore	$6

The 2019 cost comparison report from the department of Innovation, Scientific discipline and Economical Development (ISED) shows that prices are indeed coming down – betwixt 8% and 22% from 2017 to 2019 for various levels of service. This was besides reflected in the CRTC's annual communications written report which stated that wireless prices brutal between 21% and 35% from 2016 to 2018.

However, if you focusing on comparing past mobile information alone, prices have remained relatively flat in the 2-five GB, five-10 GB and 10+ GB baskets.

This data also omits the fact that prices are dropping equally fast or faster in other countries. For example, prices in the US decreased between 7% and thirty% over the aforementioned period. This is thanks to, in role, improvements in wireless technology and economies of scale as can be seen in the dropping prices for the same quality of TVs, computers and cameras.

Still hungry for more, this results in Canadians across the lath proceed to increase their spending on wireless every year. From 2014 to 2018, the national average revenue per user (ARPU) increased from $61.03 to $69.61 per calendar month, an average increase of 3.3% per year.

According to Statistics Canada'due south cellular services toll index, wireless prices have declined by 25.8% between March 2020 and March 2022. These stats have been widely touted past the government and reported by the media, but similar to the Cost Comparison Report, they focus on the price per GB of information and don't reflect the actual affordability of the monthly bill payment generated by the available plan options.

Canadians are receiving more information over time, but plans with useful, applied amounts of data go along to be pricey.

Why are plans actually then expensive?

Rogers, Bong and Telus have niggling incentive to lower their prices and undercut each other. They accuse as much as they do simply considering they can due to a lack of competition. Some of the factors limiting competition are:

Big marketplace share
High barrier to entry
Admission to the wireless spectrum is finite
Privitizations and acquisitions
Reciprocal network sharing agreements
Restricted foreign investment
Size and profitability
Aggressive or misleading sales tactics
Potential for coordination

Large marketplace share

Canada's Big 3 telecoms Bell, Rogers and Telus have a high and stable marketplace share. They receive 90.7% of the mobile market revenues which total $28.eight billion per year. This has not budged much since the first CRTC report in 2012:

Year	Marketplace share	Market revenue ($ billions)
2012	92%	$19.5
2013	92%	$twenty.2
2014	92%	$20.9
2015	92%	$22.v
2016	91%	$24.3
2017	92%	$24.five
2018	90.vii%	$27.1
2019	90.2%	$28

Only 55% of Canadians had admission to coverage from iii or more networks and the only provinces where Canadians had access to four or more networks were Ontario and Quebec.

Freedom Mobile is the 4th largest carrier, just has only been able to roll out limited coverage to parts of Ontario, BC and Alberta and mostly in cities. Their acquisition by Shaw gave Shaw a foothold in the market and set the stage for a fourth national carrier to sally. However, that potential progress would exist erased if Rogers completes its acquisition of Shaw – ensuring the Big 3 does not get the Big 4.

Regional competitor leads to lower prices

There are 4 areas in Canada where you'll pay noticeably less for service: Saskatchewan, Thunder Bay and Quebec, which all take vast, unpopulated land. What else do all of them have in common? A strong regional carrier (SaskTel, Tbaytel, Videotron, respectively).

Based on the latest price comparison report, these regional providers offer mobile wireless prices that are 12% to 34% lower and mobile cyberspace prices that are 19% to 31% lower than the national carriers.

In their submission to the CRTC, the Competition Bureau institute that prices are in the range of 35% to 40% lower in the parts of Canada where a 4th competitor has achieved a market place share higher up 5.5%.

When only Bell, Rogers and Telus are available in an area, prices are higher.

More competition from regional carriers has proven to provide Canadians with lower prices.

Loftier barrier to entry

Bong, Rogers and Telus 4G LTE and LTE-A networks cover 20% to 30% of Canada'southward geographic area and provide coverage to 99% and 94% of the population respectively.

In order to enter the market place and compete, a new challenger has to have a vast corporeality of capital available to spend big at wireless spectrum auctions, build a new nationwide network by installing antennae on existing towers and maintain them.

In 2008, the ii Ghz wireless spectrum auction led to the cosmos of new companies Wind, Mobilicity and Public Mobile which spent large amounts of money provided by their investors to acquire licenses to allow them to launch cell networks to compete with the Big 3.

Wind Mobile spent $442 million.
Mobilicity spent $243 million
Public Mobile spent $52 million.

This does non include the cost of hardware and installation, which were hundreds of millions more than.

Access to the wireless spectrum is finite

Since 1999 Industry Canada has auctioned-off licences that assign blocks of access to the wireless spectrum over which information is transmitted long distances (eg. radio, Television and GPS) and in this case, for cellular communications.

The licence gives the holder the sole right to use those frequencies. Just similar for a radio station broadcasting at 99.ane FM (MHz) only ane station tin can transmit at that frequency in a given area, otherwise they'd cause interference with each other.

In that location has been a massive growth in demand due to the rise of smartphones, data usage, and faster technologies (LTE, 5G) only the spectrum is a finite, scarce resource – there is only then much of it to go around. This has resulted in over $16 billion being spent to learn it in the past 20 years.

Canada's 2008 Advanced Wireless Services sale raised $4.3 billion and the toll per MHz per population was $i.34 for a 10 year licence. In 2014, $5.2 billion was raised with average cost of $two.32 per MHz per population for a xx year term.

The licences are valid for a standard twenty year term and there is a "high expectation" of renewal for an additional 20 unless the conditions have been breached or the spectrum needs to be used for something else. Afterward that, the Government minister of ISED determines the re-issuing process afterward a public consultation.

Reciprocal network sharing agreements

In 2001, Bell and Telus struck an agreement to share their networks which enabled them to cancel their plans to extend their wireless networks into rural areas (Bong in the West and Telus in Ontario and Quebec). This saved each company at least $500 million in network investment over ten years.

3 months after the end of the 2008 spectrum sale that welcomed 3 new competitors, Bell and Telus announced that they would work together through a network sharing agreement that would involve each investing in upgrades to their own network so overlaying the 2 networks to share the resulting widest-reaching network.

"Nosotros got Canada congenital out in less than one year — 98% covered — by basically splitting upward the land and making information technology economical to practice," "That's the benefit of having network sharing."
Bob McFarlane, master financial officer for Telus (source)

"Permit's make no mistake, Canada's gone from three national networks to two and that is not a positive matter [for competition]. More networks are a adept thing," "This is not a pocket-size sharing of the radio access network, this is a unmarried network. They used to each accept a network, now they share ane,"
Ken Engelhart, senior vice-president of regulatory diplomacy for Rogers

More than recently, Bell and Telus submitted a joint awarding to share licenses in the AWS-iii band which was canonical by ISED after assessing the objectives and criteria in section 5.6 of the Licensing Process for Spectrum Licenses for Terrestrial Services and terminal that it wouldn't impact "the power of existing or future competitors to provide services in the relevant areas."

In their September 2019 study on the root cause of weak competition in Canada, Rewheel Research found that:

Rogers, Bell and Telus engage in reciprocal network sharing, spectrum crosslicensing, subordination and joint spectrum acquisitions – measures that are about likely restrictive and anti-competitive.
Rewheel Inquiry

The study states that Canada is not a iv-network marketplace in the making with Bell, Rogers, Telus + Liberty on the rise. It is also not a true 3-network market where three carriers cover the entire country with an independent network.

Instead, information technology is a agglomeration of regional network monopolies and duopolies stitched together by extensive and peradventure coordinated agreements.

A post by sheytoon on the Public Mobile community forums, explains how the network is shared in more particular:

UE is your telephone.
E-UTRAN is the LTE Radio Access Network (RAN). In LTE, the RAN consists of the eNodeB (towers) that your phone talks to.
Evolved Parcel Core (EPC) is the LTE core network. This equipment is hosted in a few secure facilities across Canada. Data between RAN and core is carried by a "backhaul" network (not shown)

Bell and Telus only share the E-UTRAN network layer for 3G and LTE across Canada. In the west, Telus owns the towers, and Bell users are allowed to utilize it. In the east, it'southward the other way around. This allows Bong and Telus to spend less money edifice out a network, while both benefiting from information technology.

In response, Telus and Rogers will argue that in that location is nothing stopping other operators from striking like sharing agreements while at the same time refusing access to MVNOs. Only without similar market place power, what leverage does a smaller competitor take to become a reasonable bargain on a network sharing agreement?

The CRTC has had to accost 2 disputes between carriers and potential MVNOs (Water ice Wireless and TNW Wireless) where the potential competitor was unable to negotiate an agreement with the wireless carrier. In both cases, the potential competitor decided to try using the wholesale roaming charge per unit organization equally an alternating means of entering the market place by and were somewhen blocked from doing so by the CRTC.

Bell and Telus take drastically reduced infrastructure investment costs by sharing each other's networks.

Privitizations, mergers and acquisitions

Privatizations

Canada used to have more government-run phone companies that directly regulated prices – to mixed success – similar to how our utilities are owned and operated now. Since the 1990s most of these companies take been privatizated or merged with the Big 3.

For example, in 1996, the Provincial Government of Manitoba sold Manitoba Telephone System (MTS) to private shareholders.

Telus Communications was formed in 1991 when Alberta Government Telephones – which had been a crown corporation since 1958 – was privatized past the province. They merged with BC Tel in 1999.

Acquisitions

Rogers acquires Shaw (and Liberty Mobile)

Founded in 1966, Shaw, Canada'south 4th-largest provider announced it would be acquired by Rogers March 15, 2021. Rogers would now own Liberty Mobile – reducing the

The deal is under review by the Contest Bureau. Over 62,000 petition signatures were collected in opposition of the bargain.

Bell acquires Manitoba Telecom Services (MTS)

Regional telecom Manitoba Telecom Services (MTS) was privatized by the Government of Manitoba in 1996 and acquired past Bell on March 17, 2017 in a transaction valued at approximately $3.9 billion. It now operates as Bell MTS.

The Competition Agency warned that the conquering would likely increase prices and reduce options for consumers after a 9 month investigation into the bargain.

A few years after they came into being, the companies that were hailed as the new wave of competition in the Canadian market (Wind, Mobilicity and Public Mobile) were acquired by major players and are at present either a subsidiary or defunct:

Shaw acquires Freedom Mobile

Freedom Mobile (prev. Wind Mobile) launched in 2008, and was caused by Shaw March 1, 2016.

No action was taken on this transaction every bit it did not reduce the number of national wireless competitors and ready the stage for a 4th national carrier to sally.

Rogers acquires Mobilicity

Mobilicity launched in 2008, went bankrupt in 2013, and was caused by Rogers June 24, 2015 after Telus was blocked from acquiring the company in 2013.

Telus acquires Public Mobile

Public Mobile launched in 2008, and was acquired by Telus October 2013. Competition Bureau statement

Rogers acquires Fido

Fido launched Dec 1996, and was acquired by Rogers November 2004.

Foreign investment is restricted

In Canada, every major phone, internet and television provider is Canadian. A few strange companies also offer services to a scattering of customers, but they are all ultimately dependent on accessing Canadian firms' infrastructure.

Since 1993, the Telecommunications Human action has required that a carrier must be incorporated in Canada, eighty% of its board of directors must be Canadian, 80% of its voting shares must be endemic past Canadians, and it must not be otherwise controlled by foreign interests. Corporations investing in the operating carrier (holding companies) are considered to be Canadian if 66.67% of voting shares of that corporation are held by Canadians and it is non otherwise controlled in fact past non-Canadians.

Without the threat of a new, well-financed foreign company coming in to build its own networks and steal customers, Canadian service providers benefit from this protectionism.

Profitability and size create market power

Profitability and investments

Await no further than the Big 3'south annual financial reports. Bell, Rogers, Telus are consistently high-performing businesses and are amid the largest and most assisting companies in Canada.

In 2019, Bell had but under 10 million wireless subscribers that brought in revenues of $nine.xiv billion and $iii.84 billion in earnings (42% margin) for average earnings per subscriber of $385.42.

Equally publicly traded companies, the Big 3's responsibility is to protect their interests and those of their shareholders – not necessarily to the Canadian consumer.

That said, their shareholders are in big part institutional investors with stakes of 47%, 48% and 53% respectively including mutual and pension funds. Their shareholders are also in large function the Canadian public, with stakes of seventy%, viii% and 78% respectively, so in a roundabout way, they are beholden to many Canadians, but their growth and profitability are also of prime number importance to those same people. Some consumers have jokingly referred to the loftier plan prices as a 'forced savings plan'.

Major telecoms threatened to reduce their investments in improving rural networks if the government agreed with the CRTCs proposal to lower wholesale rates, leading the regime to modify their heed on wholesale internet prices. This has already led to college internet bills.

Large employers

In improver to financial performance, they are large organizations that provide employment to many people in Canada. Interesting to notation is that Canadian telecoms have 1.3 to vi times more employees per dollar of revenue, even though the US has nine times the population of Canada.

Telecom	Employees (2019)	Revenue (2019) ($Billions)	Revenue per employee
Bell	52,100	23.96	$459,884.84
Rogers	25,300	15.07	$595,652.17
Telus	65,600	fourteen.seven	$224,085.37
AT&T	243,350	239.18	$982,864.19
Verizon	135,000	174.05	$ane,289,259.26
T-Mobile	52,000	59.37	$1,141,730.77

Revenue per employee of top 3 telecoms – Canada vs US

This enables them to wield their employees as leverage in threats and warnings to government and regulators. For example, Telus said information technology would cut 5,000 jobs if CRTC approved MVNOs.

A PwC study released by the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) which represents the major wireless companies in Canada, including PwC itself, specifically highlighted that telecom in Canada directly employs over 120k people in high value, well-paying jobs.

The study ended that Canada'due south Gdp would exist reduced by $ten billion over 5 years, tax revenue would drop $2.5 billion and 94,000 jobs would be lost if MVNO access was mandated.

With size and profitability comes market power.

Aggressive or misleading sales practices

A study by the CRTC that included a public consultation, public opinion research and a 5 day hearing ended that many Canadians have experienced misleading or aggressive sales practices by telecom companies and that these harmful practices "exist in all sales channels, including in store, online, over the phone, and door to door."

Examples given include telephone call heart employees adding services to a customer'southward account without permission, retail shop employees fudging contract details and door-to-door salespeople misrepresenting contract prices.

Potential for coordination

Canadians often note how similar providers' programme prices are and apace attribute it to the market existence an oligopoly:

The Competition Agency has stated that Canada's wireless industry is highly susceptible to coordination and that it is likely that coordinated behaviour between the Large 3 exists.

Their investigation into Bell's acquisition of Manitoba Telecom Services (MTS), establish that as a result of coordinated behaviour amongst Bell, Telus and Rogers, wireless prices in Canada are higher in regions where they do not face competition from a strong regional competitor and that prices are substantially lower in areas a strong regional competitor can disrupt the effects of coordination amidst them.

Pricing signals tin exist communicated using public announcements and posted prices that are publicly available, closely monitored, and quickly reacted to.

Past investigations by authorities in Netherlands, Republic of ireland and France have found that their wireless operators released unilateral public statements in the press or at conferences, coordinated on cost and/or denying independent MVNOs network access.

Price-fixing vs toll coordination

Price-fixing refers to written or verbal agreements or arrangements made between competitors to fix, maintain or control the price of a product or reduce contest in a market.

Cost coordination refers to an a situational understanding or implication that exists between competitors that isn't necessarily communicated or negotiated. It stems from a recognition that both companies tin can benefit past competing less aggressively.

While price-fixing is an indictable criminal offence under Section 45 of the Contest Human action, price coordination is non.

Previously implemented solutions

Some progress has been made in fostering a more competitive mobile industry through a combination of regulatory initiatives including:

Limiting data overage fees

In 2017, the CRTC's Wireless Code of Conduct limited data overage charges to $50 for single mobile phone nib and to international information roaming overage to $100 unless the user chooses to purchase more data. Unfortunately, these caps practise not apply to minutes, texts or international calls.

Mandatory roaming and belfry sharing

The CRTC fabricated it mandatory for the Large 3 to provide national roaming services at regulated wholesale rates to regional mobile network operators including Freedom Mobile, Videotron and SaskTel.

This way, a regional operator tin assure their customers will have national coverage when they leave their home regional network and connect to other networks equally they travel across Canada – at a reasonable toll to the regional operator. Unfortunately, this doesn't apply to MVNOs.

Tower sharing was made mandatory in social club to reduce the number of new cell towers beingness built and to make it quicker, easier and cheaper for competitors to enter and compete in new markets. Information technology applies to all carriers in all bands and mandatory roaming applies to all operators with Cellular, PCS, AWS, MBS or BRS bands.

Auctioning the spectrum

Since 1999, Industry Canada has implemented an auction format to assign blocks of spectrum to telecom companies and has since implemented pro-competitive measures such every bit spectrum set-aside and caps.

Potential solutions to make plans less expensive

Mandated Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) access

Previously, it had been upwards to the national carriers to individually negotiate and agree on wholesale rates with MVNOs – which they oasis't been willing to practise voluntarily or fairly.

Mandatory MVNO admission would mean contained wireless companies would have access to providers' networks via regulated wholesale rates and compete on prices, plans and customer service. This approach is already used for internet prices.

Redesign the wireless spectrum sale

Wireless spectrum is an increasingly valuable and finite resources. Access to information technology is vital for networks to provide reliable, high-speed and far-reaching mobile connectivity.

The start spectrum auction was held by Manufacture Canada in 1999 in a simultaneous multiple round auction (SMRA) format. Earlier that, most spectrum was assigned on a kickoff-come up, first-served ground with some allocations equally early every bit 1995 taking into business relationship the speed and extensiveness of coverage of the network planned by the applicant.

Sale	Purpose	Date	Sale Format	Competitive measures
24 & 38 Ghz	BWA	Nov 19, 1999	SMRA	Auction. Open to everyone.
2300 & 3500 MHz	WCS & FWA	2004, 2005, 2009	SMRA	Sale
ii Ghz	AWS	July 21, 2008	SMRA	Fix-aside 40/90 MHz for new entrants who have less than ten% of the national wireless market based on acquirement.
700 MHz		Feb 13, 2014	CCA	Spectrum cap of 24/56 Mhz of total of 68 Mhz. Carriers with more than 10% national or twenty% provincial market share large were limited to a subset of 12/44 Mhz of total of 68 Mhz. Enabled a fourth wireless actor in every region across the state.
AWS-3		March iii, 2015	Sealed-bid	Set-aside of 30/50 MHz for carriers with less than 10% national and twenty% provincial market share where they already operate a network that meets minimum population coverage requirement.
2500 Mhz	BRS	May five, 2015	CCA	Spectrum cap of 40 MHz to facilitate at to the lowest degree four licensees in each service area. Favoured new players in provinces where they already offering service.
Rest 700 MHz and AWS-3		August 25, 2015	Sealed-bid	Same equally previous 700 Mhz & AWS-3 auctions.
Balance Spectrum Licences		May xv, 2018	Sealed-bid	Same as previous auctions
600 Mhz	4G LTE	April 4, 2019	Modified CCA	Set up-aside thirty/lxx MHz for existing regional (not national) network owners currently providing services.
3500 Mhz	5G	June 15, 2021	Clock sale with generic licenses	Gear up-aside of upward to fifty MHz in 138/172 locations for regional (not national) network owners currently providing services. Must demonstrate that spectrum has been put to utilize in all areas where they accept existing mid-band LTE.

While irresolute to an sale format provided a number of benefits including providing a more than open up, objective and efficient process, there was also significant political motivation to increase government acquirement without having to increase taxes past tapping the public resource. The auctions have raised billions of dollars that get direct to the Government's revenue business relationship – the same place as our taxes.

Since and so, they have tested different auction formats and implemented additional pro-competitive measures including setting bated a chunk of spectrum that merely smaller players can bid on and cap limits to ensure large players don't buy it all upwards.

A spectrum prepare-aside ensures that a minimum amount of spectrum is reserved for a certain sub-ready of entities – typically newer, smaller competitors.

A spectrum cap limits the amount of spectrum that each licensee is immune to obtain, ensuring there are at least a few service providers in a given area.

Reserving space for small and regional companies has led to lower prices for consumers, just really but in the region they operate in (eg. Quebec, Saskatchewan, big cities). More spectrum should exist set-bated in areas that do not have a strong regional carrier to assist small companies become a foothold.

There should also exist a more than well-defined licence renewal procedure that doesn't lean as heavily on ISED because a public consultation to decide the conditions and fees.

Based on the history of the auctions and the resulting fates of the telecom companies created and acquired over the years, increasing competition probable cannot exist accomplished through adjustments to the spectrum auction alone, however, it is an of import piece of the puzzle as the industry prepares for the adjacent phase: 5G.

Timeline of actions by the authorities and CRTC

We put together this timeline of the actions taken by the CRTC, the Government and telecom companies to figure out where things currently stand and how we got hither. Here's generally how information technology goes:

2018 – Acknowledge prices are loftier, contest is low
2018 – Commission manufacture written report
2019 – Event a pro-consumer policy direction to the CRTC
2019 – Effect a pro-consumer policy direction to the CRTC
2019 – Acknowledge prices are high, contest is depression
2019 – Commission industry report
2020 – Commission industry study
2021 – Commission manufacture report
2022 – Acknowledge prices are loftier, competition is low
2022 – Event a pro-consumer policy direction to the CRTC

Permit's take a await at the timeline and then far:

December 2019 – Liberal government promises to reduce prison cell phone bills past 25%

March 2020 – Liberal authorities gives Big three 2 years to cut prices by 25%

The benchmark price, or the toll to which the 25% reduction will apply, is based on prices advertised on visitor websites in early 2020 for mail service-paid, bring your own device (BYOD), unlimited talk and text 4G/LTE plans in the 2 GB to half-dozen GB range.

$50 for 2GB down to $37.l
$55 for 4GB down to $41.25
$60 for 6GB down to $45

The government tracks and publishes the prices publicly in the Telecom quarterly report.

April 2021 – CRTC chooses facilities-based MVNO over wholesale MVNO model

The determination requires the Big 3 to sell access to their wireless networks at regulated wholesale rates, but only to regional providers that have invested in their own network infrastructure and spectrum, only for a period of 7 years and rates must be negotiated between the parties (rather than being gear up by the CRTC) – a truthful half-measure out decision. It also requires the Large 3 to implement seamless roaming.

This volition enable, but non require existing regional providers such as Videotron and Xplornet to immediately start serving new areas and competing for customers at that place while incentivizing them to build out their physical networks – essentially a glorified roaming agreement.

The CRTC hopes this will be enough to convince a regional provider to expand across Canada and become a national histrion.

The decision cuts out existing and would-be smaller, contained MVNOs from entering the market without commencement ownership wireless spectrum – a scarce and expensive resource.

This seems odd considering how open wholesale access model has has some success in the cyberspace services market – enabling independent wholesale ISPs to concord seven.ii% of the market every bit of 2019 – up from iv.6% in 2013.

May 2021 – Large iii partially satisfy the government's 25% price reduction requirement

Bell, Rogers and Telus cut the cost of the 6 GB plans at their flanker brands Virgin, Fido and Koodo past ~25% to $45 in all provinces except Quebec, meeting the regime'south objective. Instead of lowering the prices of their 2 GB or iv GB plans, all three brands initially cut them out entirely:

May 2021 – TekSavvy withdraws from the spectrum auction

TekSavvy will non be taking role in the auction of wireless spectrum due to the internet rates decision, which would have meant a new competitor and more choice of mobile phone plans for consumers. They pointed to the wholesale internet rate decision equally the reason.

Ian Scott makes information technology clear he personally prefers the tried and failed model of facilities-based contest.

November 2021 – Telephone programme affordability no longer in Liberal platform

March 2022 – Big three encounter the government's 25% price reduction requirements (more often than not)

Virgin, Fido and Koodo fabricated 2 GB, 4 GB and 6 GB "Starter plans" available at the bottom of their plans pages, priced exactly to the required 25% reduction. The catch is that the plans are for new activations only, so it'due south time to switch providers! Only fourth dimension will tell how long these plans will be bachelor.

March 2022 – Rogers to acquire Shaw for $26 billion

Shaw's home telephone, wireless and net services are not subject to CRTC approval, but are being reviewed by the Competition Bureau and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED), which controls the usage of spectrum licenses used to provide wireless services. These decisions are expected in tardily 2022.

The acquisition of Shaw's broadcasting (TV) services was approved by the CRTC, with requirements that Roger must:

contribute $27.2 million beyond various funds including the Canada Media Fund (80%), the Independent Local News Fund, the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund and the Broadcasting Participation Fund
create an Indigenous news team with journalists in all provinces where they deliver stories to First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities
employ a college number of journalists at its CityTV stations across the land
produce an additional 48 news specials in prime fourth dimension each year that reflect local communities
distribute at to the lowest degree 45 independent English and French-language services on each of its cable and satellite services
report annually on its commitments to increase its support for local news

Telus Corp. has argued contest and consumer selection volition decrease and prices will increase if the transaction gain. Bell, which had made and later withdrew its own offering to buy Shaw, argued in its intervention to the CRTC that it would give Rogers "unprecedented market place dominance" – 35.5% of national (47% of English-language) dissemination distribution and revenues, and one of every three Cyberspace connections in Canada – exceeding the 35% threshold the Bureau uses to identify transactions that may be anti-competitive.

May 2022 – Competition Bureau to intend to preclude the merger

Conclusion

Canadians pay considerably more for their phone plans than consumers in many other developed countries considering at that place is picayune to no competition in almost regions beyond the country.

While information technology'southward easy to point the finger at the Large 3, they are public companies expected to maximize profits. At the end of the day, their playing field is determined by the regulatory bodies that exist to go along them in check: the government (ISED), CRTC, and Competition Bureau.

From auctioning spectrum to spectrum ready-asides and mandatory tower sharing, the competitive changes over the by twenty years take little progress in the competitiveness of Canada's wireless market. Potent, decisive activeness must be taken is necessary if whatever comeback is to be expected.

At a minimum, MVNOs should exist implemented on a temporary basis to help regional providers aggrandize their networks across the country with the status that if it doesn't lower prices for Canadians inside a few years, that full MVNO admission is mandated.

"The issue is not whether Canadian consumers pay some of the highest rates for wireless services anywhere in the developed world (in fact, Telus suggests Canada should have the highest prices in the earth). Rather, it is what, if anything, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Government minister Navdeep Bains and the CRTC are prepared to do about it."
Michael Geist, law professor, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa

Take action

Make your vocalization heard in 2 clicks

If any of the above doesn't sit well with you and you lot want to see modify including more competition and lower prices, you can e-mail the Minister of Industry, Scientific discipline and Economic Development and ask for CRTC and Competition Bureau intervention.

An example of what to write:

"Minister, I'm a Canadian deeply concerned with the flaws in the regulation of the wireless industry. Nosotros take a system where true competition is not present and as a Canadian I'm formally requesting you lot respond and am formally requesting this letter is sent to the Contest Bureau.

Give thanks yous for hearing my concerns, I look forrard to your response.

Regards,
Your Name"

Stay informed

Know your rights by reading Canada's Wireless Lawmaking of Conduct
How to Make a Complaint About Your Telephone Service – CRTC
CRTC public inquiries and complaints form
Support the Public Interest Advocacy Centre

Sources

Telecom quarterly written report: Toll collection data – Innovation, Scientific discipline and Economical Development Canada
CRTC's Communications Monitoring Reports
Review of Mobile Wireless Services (2019) – Contest Bureau
Cost Comparisons of Wireline, Wireless and Internet Services in Canada and with Foreign Jurisdictions (2018)
Cost Comparisons of Wireline, Wireless and Cyberspace Services in Canada and with Foreign Jurisdictions (2019)
Price Comparisons of Wireline, Wireless and Cyberspace Services in Canada and with Strange Jurisdictions (2020)
THE State OF COMPETITION IN CANADA'South TELECOMMUNICATIONS Industry – 2018 – Montreal Economic Plant
The country of 4G pricing (2018) – Digital Fuel Monitor, Rewheel
Cost Comparison Study of Telecommunications Services in Canada and Select Foreign Jurisdictions (2017) – Innovation, Science and Economic Evolution Canada

Over to yous

How much do you pay for your phone plan and what do y'all get for that toll? Let united states know in the comments below!