HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2016, 5:49 AM
ReginaGuy's Avatar
ReginaGuy ReginaGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by micheal View Post
I care because it comes out of mine and your pocket. The taxpayer. I care because the taxpayer carry's 100% of the pension liability and debt. It's not the governments responsibility to create jobs but to foster a good economic environment through sound policy. We don't live in the 1920's. There was a time and a place but those days are gone. It's the private sector that creates wealth and tax revenue for governments. The public sector has proven time and time again that it is inefficient and heavily laded bureaucracy . Thus affecting our, the citizens and taxpayers of this province, ability to receive a higher ROI.
What comes out of my pocket? Last time I checked, sasktel makes a profit and pays in to the government, essentially lowering my taxes. Also, how can you possibly call sasktel inefficient if they provide the same service for half the cost and still post a profit? Inefficient compared to what?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2016, 7:10 AM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Слава Україні
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 3,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2 View Post
Well for one thing, the government fronted all the money for SaskTel in the first place. That is, it didn't start like a typical business and it doesn't operate like a typical business.

SaskTel gets direct payments from the government all the time.
It's not unique to Sasktel/Saskatchewan and certainly wouldn't stop if Sasktel were sold off, the successor might even be less likely to put as much funding alongside the government funding; the big 3 aren't exactly known for laying out infrastructure in isolated, low density areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2016, 11:56 AM
skthunder77's Avatar
skthunder77 skthunder77 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2 View Post
Well for one thing, the government fronted all the money for SaskTel in the first place. That is, it didn't start like a typical business and it doesn't operate like a typical business.

SaskTel gets direct payments from the government all the time.
I am not 100% sure where I stand on this one. Ideologically I am aligned with the sale however, politically, given the SK Party base is rural I'm not sure this will pay off like they think since it is those rural voters who are most likely to suffer from higher rates, poorer service and coverage. I assume this to be true due to the fact that there is less profit in servicing a low population density area.

However, your claim that Sasktel gets payments from the government regularly doesn't seems that strong when your quoted article is 7 years old already. Hardly all the time. Also, you are kidding yourself if you think Telus or Bell wouldn't require the province to make similar investments to help fund rural network upkeep/expansion. The difference would be that Telus and Bell couldn't be tapped for a dividend to get that money back.

That brings me to my next fear. There is no way that Telus or Bell pay anywhere near as much corporate income tax as Sasktel pays in dividends. They have accounting departments paid to prevent that. So where will governments make up that shortfall? ALL governments, lefties and righties alike become dependent on the dividends so I am skeptical on this one.

I think the SK Party would be wise to drag this out long enough to wait for oil or potash to bounce back a bit so that the hit could be softened.

****

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think the Gov't is wise to bring this up now. With land lines going the way of the Dinosaur, and most recently the slow but sure death of subscription TV as we know it, the only money making piece of SaskTel left will be the Mobile business. I think the value for the company will only go down. So sell ASAP for highest value. I think the hit to rural SK is inevitable. I think if they can make enough to clear the debt, the annual savings in debt servicing will make up for at least a portion of lost dividends. It's a big decision. I just hope it goes to referendum like they claim it will.

Last edited by skthunder77; Aug 26, 2016 at 2:59 PM. Reason: Thought about it more...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2016, 2:30 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 5,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ajs View Post
dont make the mistake manitoba made!
I'm about as right wing as they come but I actually agree with 1ajs on this, service became terrible and will now get even worse with Bell buying out the already privatized MTS. Rates on all MTS services skyrocketed after MTS was privatized.

The only way privatization of Sasktel works is if there is adequate competition which there really isn't anywhere in Canada!
__________________
I'm sober enough to know what I'm doing, and drunk enough to really enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2016, 2:49 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Winnipeg/Cobourg
Posts: 3,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
I'm about as right wing as they come but I actually agree with 1ajs on this, service became terrible and will now get even worse with Bell buying out the already privatized MTS.
I don't know where this comes from. I have had an MTS phone for 10 years and there has not been one minute where it didn't work.

Governments do not belong in business, sorry.
__________________
Get off my lawn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2016, 3:10 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 5,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
I don't know where this comes from. I have had an MTS phone for 10 years and there has not been one minute where it didn't work.

Governments do not belong in business, sorry.
If your talking strictly phone service no argument but for everything else MTS flat out sucks, customer service borders on terrible to non-existent.

Totally agree that govt. does not belong in business but that exception being where a monopoly exists. Aside from MTS no service provider offers the comprehensive package that MTS offers, had Shaw offered wireless I would have switched to them years ago!
__________________
I'm sober enough to know what I'm doing, and drunk enough to really enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2016, 3:44 PM
Festivus Festivus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dougler306 View Post
I agree with the selling as well and for the dividend that would be missed each year. Correct me if im wrong, but if tax payers are using tax dollars to run this company, wouldn't those tax dollars just go straight to the government coffers each year now instead? So the missing out on a dividend doesn't really apply
Tax payers aren't really paying for Sasktel, except through plan fees if you are a subscriber. Or did you think Sasktel was run out of general government revenue?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2016, 4:10 PM
Festivus Festivus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
I don't know where this comes from. I have had an MTS phone for 10 years and there has not been one minute where it didn't work.

Governments do not belong in business, sorry.
What do you define as business, though? In Canada healthcare is not business, but in the US it is. Municipal water service is almost entirely public in Canada, but is business in other countries.

What is defined as business vs public is arbitrary, and the line should be drawn around the public good. When profits are at odds with the public good, a service should be publicly-run. This goes for things such as the military, policing, firefighting, healthcare, roads, general infrastructure, etc.

The other situation where public service is superior is cases where the cost of entering a market/overhead/scale makes monopolies the best form of provider, such as insurance pools or utilities.

I think that when considering these sorts of issues you have to leave your ideological hat at the door. Selling off all crowns/public services is a bad idea, and so is keeping all crowns/services. Things like SLGA don't really need to exist, outside of money-making for the government. Having private stores allows better selection and pricing, and you can still enforce regulations if you want to socially-engineer against heavy public drinking (price controls). So I am in favour generally of private liquor stores (with regulations, I don't want whiskey in every corner store, for example, which makes it harder to control distribution/pricing). But in other cases such as the big 4 (Sasktel, Saskpower, Saskenergy, SGI), they exist in areas where the public good is best served by keeping them public.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2016, 4:50 PM
The Unknown Poster The Unknown Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 714
Everyone is going to have examples of poor customer service at some point. But MTS has made major strives in customer service.

MTS also went through some major job slashing just to prepare for the for sale sign. If Sasktel really wants to sell, they likely will have to do something similar. MTS offered good buy outs/early retirements and actually had more people wanting to go then they were willing to lose but accommodated everyone.

If Sasktel hires MTS' current CEO, then be worried!

Would Bell be in the running to buy Sasktel or would they be spread too thin after the MTS purchase? I would think it would be very attractive to them with MTS/Sasktel combined...but most "head office" jobs would likely be in Winnipeg.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2016, 8:29 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,961
It is hard to make the call on who is better positioned to buy SaskTel, Telus or BCE. Assuming the MTS sale goes through SaskTel then would have BCE on its eastern border and Telus on its western border. BCE has more the gain though than Telus as it is a vertical integrated company. It is actually to the point a merger of BCE and Telus makes senses on a lot of levels another than the likely thorny issue are wireless service regulation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2016, 8:37 PM
Festivus Festivus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
It is actually to the point a merger of BCE and Telus makes senses on a lot of levels another than the likely thorny issue are wireless service regulation.
Oh god don't even make us think about a world in which Canada only has 2 national providers. Because if the government allowed that, they'd likely allow BCE to buy Rogers as well...*shudders.*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2016, 9:21 PM
cllew cllew is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Festivus View Post
Oh god don't even make us think about a world in which Canada only has 2 national providers. Because if the government allowed that, they'd likely allow BCE to buy Rogers as well...*shudders.*
I read a couple of the books on Ted Rogers and apparently he put together some sort of trust thing that would make it very hard for anybody to buy the Rogers company.

Its roots are in seeing his fathers radio station being taken away from the Rogers family after he died, and Ted Rogers did not his kids to see his business empire suffer the same fate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2016, 2:57 PM
yveseluj yveseluj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Regina
Posts: 61
The only way the sale of SaskTel can be justified is on ideological grounds, which is a horrendous excuse for action. I don't care if you don't think a telecom should be public; their financials are solid, their profits have risen over the past few years, they're self-sufficient, you pay lower cell phone rates because of them, your internet isn't capped, your taxes are likely lower because of them, they provide an essential service to rural communities who'd otherwise have nothing, they're investing in a massive province-wide fibre infrastructure program, and they have a head office in the province as well as dozens of satellite offices and call centres throughout the province employing 4,100 FTEs.

Privatization is a short-sighted, knee-jerk reaction by a government who has likely relied too heavily on royalty revenue from natural resources, and who will no doubt frame this potential sale as transformational change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2016, 3:03 PM
Festivus Festivus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by yveseluj View Post
The only way the sale of SaskTel can be justified is on ideological grounds, which is a horrendous excuse for action. I don't care if you don't think a telecom should be public; their financials are solid, their profits have risen over the past few years, they're self-sufficient, you pay lower cell phone rates because of them, your internet isn't capped, your taxes are likely lower because of them, they provide an essential service to rural communities who'd otherwise have nothing, they're investing in a massive province-wide fibre infrastructure program, and they have a head office in the province as well as dozens of satellite offices and call centres throughout the province employing 4,100 FTEs.

Privatization is a short-sighted, knee-jerk reaction by a government who has likely relied too heavily on royalty revenue from natural resources, and who will no doubt frame this potential sale as transformational change.
That is a great succinct summary of the situation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2016, 1:20 AM
robertocarlos robertocarlos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 480
Just look at the boatload of money Filmon made from MTS after the sale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2016, 7:20 AM
one_brick_at_a_time's Avatar
one_brick_at_a_time one_brick_at_a_time is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Regina/Toronto
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by yveseluj View Post
The only way the sale of SaskTel can be justified is on ideological grounds, which is a horrendous excuse for action. I don't care if you don't think a telecom should be public; their financials are solid, their profits have risen over the past few years, they're self-sufficient, you pay lower cell phone rates because of them, your internet isn't capped, your taxes are likely lower because of them, they provide an essential service to rural communities who'd otherwise have nothing, they're investing in a massive province-wide fibre infrastructure program, and they have a head office in the province as well as dozens of satellite offices and call centres throughout the province employing 4,100 FTEs.

Privatization is a short-sighted, knee-jerk reaction by a government who has likely relied too heavily on royalty revenue from natural resources, and who will no doubt frame this potential sale as transformational change.
Right on the money! Totally agree!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2016, 7:36 PM
kenskca kenskca is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2 View Post
The main problem with SaskTel is that you can never really tell their proper profit. Their infrastructure budgets from the legislature not directly from their own coffers. That is, if Rogers wants to put up towers they budget it. If SaskTel wants towers the government pays for them then they give the government future profits, assuming they exist. Also, Telus has more of Alberta covered than SaskTel does of Saskatchewan.

SaskTel's home internet prices are nothing to get excited about either.

The other thing is that I really don't care if every farmer has coverage. It's the same way with the STC, people who choose to live in the middle over nowhere should not have their way of lives subsidized by urban taxpayers.

And yet, I like paying $55 for 5GB phone plans so SaskTel can stay as far as I'm concerned. It sure as hell wouldn't be the first crown I'd privatize. (SLGA, STC, SGCC, SaskGaming, GTH)
Wait, what? If thats the main problem, then there is no problem.

SaskTel prepares financial statements and budgets just like any private company. They pay for everything themselves, and issue their own debt.

You can find some budget information in their annual report:

https://www.sasktel.com/wps/wcm/conn...df?MOD=AJPERES

Here are details on their capital budget for 2016/17:

https://www.sasktel.com/about-us/new...tal-investment

Last edited by kenskca; Aug 29, 2016 at 10:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2016, 7:51 PM
kenskca kenskca is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrutallyDishonest2 View Post
Well for one thing, the government fronted all the money for SaskTel in the first place. That is, it didn't start like a typical business and it doesn't operate like a typical business.

SaskTel gets direct payments from the government all the time.
According to their annual report they have received a grand total of 1 government grant from the provincial government (the one you quoted). It is under Note 16 (page 96) They do not seem to receive government grants "all the time".

SaskTel must disclose all government grants under IFRS.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2016, 8:59 PM
kenskca kenskca is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 43
At the end of the day, it should all come down to benefits to the province.

Yes side will have the offer, and can calculate the interest savings easy. There will be no debating it. Lets say the offer is $4.1 billion. Assume 5% interest and you save $205 million a year in interest. Swings in the price of oil and exchange rate can have an impact greater than that, but thats neither here nor there.

Calculating the other side will be more difficult because no one can tell the future. Will SaskTel continue to provide $100M annually? Will the buyer move head office jobs out of the province? Will rates go up? Will network investment remain at current levels?

The largest risk with the most unknowns will be salaries and rates.

On the salary side, there is $370 million in payroll at risk. If even 1/3 of the jobs leave the province over time you are looking at over $120 million less potential economic activity in the province. That would have a huge impact. It would trickle down to every business and would mean less opportunities for the next generation.

On the rates side, SaskTel has 600K wireless accesses. I don't know how many would be impacted by the increases, but lets say on average rates go up $10 per month. Some go up $30, some go up $20, some go up $0.

So if its $10 per month, at 600K accesses that would be $6 million per month ($72 million per year) heading out of province. And that is just SaskTel customers.

Rate increases would happen to Telus, Bell and Rogers customers as well. SaskTel has roughly 70% market share. So that means Bell, Telus and Rogers have about 250K access combined. Again, assuming $10 average increase you have another $2.5 million a month ($30 million per year) heading out of province.

The problem will be quantifying it all. I think everyone agrees the number for rate increases will be more than $0. But what number is it? Above I assumed $10 average. Maybe its $5? Maybe its $1? Every $1 average increase is $10.2M Saskatchewan consumers will pay in a year.

If the right number is $10 average though, then you lose $100M in net income and consumers pay $100M more in rates. All that is money leaving the province. That right there equals your interest savings. Potential job losses haven't even entered the equation.

IMO the province has more to lose than to gain by selling SaskTel. There is a reason companies want to buy SaskTel, and it isn't to do us a favour, it is to MAKE $$$.

Last edited by kenskca; Aug 29, 2016 at 9:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2016, 4:00 PM
James Gablan James Gablan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenskca View Post
Yes side will have the offer, and can calculate the interest savings easy. There will be no debating it. Lets say the offer is $4.1 billion. Assume 5% interest and you save $205 million a year in interest. Swings in the price of oil and exchange rate can have an impact greater than that, but thats neither here nor there.
The yield on Saskatchewan government bonds are currently around 2% - 2.5%, that reduces your interest savings down to around $100 million, or approximately the value of the dividend.

With interest rates continuing to fall around the world, now is not a very good time for the province to be investing in government bonds, even its own.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:41 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.