HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted May 3, 2016, 9:18 PM
EpicPonyTime's Avatar
EpicPonyTime EpicPonyTime is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Yellowfork
Posts: 1,068
I did not know that part of the deal was to send customers to Telus. That bothers the hell out of me. If they were actually trying to promote "competition" they wouldn't give a bigger foothold to a company that will simply match prices once MTS is out of the picture.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted May 3, 2016, 9:27 PM
Festivus Festivus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325 View Post
When this deal was announced (yesterday) I'm pretty sure that Greg Selinger was still the premier.
...okay? MTS was privatized in the 90s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted May 3, 2016, 9:32 PM
Festivus Festivus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
Incorrect. In both MB and SK Telus has extremely limited coverage. It used to be in Manitoba that they had no coverage past the Perimeter. In order to offset their limited coverage Telus low balled the prices forcing Rogers and MTS to match.
No, you are incorrect. In SK Telus has the most coverage (tied with Sasktel) because they use Sasktel's network. And why do you think Telus lowered prices? Because of competition. In Ontario there is no competition as the big 3 providers price-fix pretty openly. Ontario should have the lowest rates in the country due to density, but they have the highest. SK should have the highest due to low-density, but we have the lowest. More competition (especially government-owned, which only Saskatchewan still has as far as I am aware) is the key to keeping prices low.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
Incorrect again. The CRTC is not reviewing the deal for competitive reasons, that would be Industry Canada through the group formerly known as the Competition Bureau. It is one of the three regulator reviews the BCE purchase of MTS is subject to approval from. The other two are Industry Canada regarding the allocation of wireless spectrum and the CRTC which will review the detail to make sure it complies with things like the Wireless Code of Conduct, access to communication for people with disabilities, and the new "skinny cable". If you want to complain you need to send your concerns to the correct group.
And if you'd read my post you'd see that I linked to the competition bureau as well as the main place to contact.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted May 3, 2016, 10:25 PM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 8,972
The unknown factor in all of this is Shaw.

Shaw purchased Wind Mobile not to long ago with the plan to become a major player in wireless.

I would expect any merger between MTS and Bell will require the new company to sell of some of the spectrum they own or other infrastructure to ensure some level of completion. That likely means Shaw gain a foothold into Winnipeg.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 3, 2016, 10:50 PM
Festivus Festivus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper View Post
The unknown factor in all of this is Shaw.

Shaw purchased Wind Mobile not to long ago with the plan to become a major player in wireless.

I would expect any merger between MTS and Bell will require the new company to sell of some of the spectrum they own or other infrastructure to ensure some level of completion. That likely means Shaw gain a foothold into Winnipeg.
My understanding was that this could actually trigger a situation where Shaw attempts to dump Wind. I'll try and look up the reasoning on that (as it seemed counter-intuitive to me when I heard it).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 3, 2016, 11:00 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Festivus View Post
...okay? MTS was privatized in the 90s.


Yes, so I'm not sure what the PC government sworn in today has to do with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted May 3, 2016, 11:06 PM
BuildUpWpg BuildUpWpg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post

Part of the deal proposes to make Winnipeg the western headquarters for Bell MTS West. It is not known what impact this will have on office space. Separate from the existing MTS offices in downtown Winnipeg there is generally a lot of office space available for lease. It is thought that any increases in staff levels would not warrant the construction of a new office. If anything the new company might add additional leased space in an existing or already proposed building near the existing MTS campus.
You can bet the farm on it that there will be significant decrease in staff downtown. This from the BCE CEO in the FP today:

Although Cope would not promise there would be no job losses -- "we aren't going to pretend, we have to be honest, there will be some obvious duplications" -- he said, "In our world, when we spend $1 billion in capital, that is putting people to work."

Obvious duplications would be payroll, finance, marketing, IT...pretty much everyone in the downtown campus does today...all things that could be done from out east. The increase would come from the contractors hired to install the new fibre network. Not many would be working in a downtown office.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted May 3, 2016, 11:14 PM
Festivus Festivus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325 View Post
Yes, so I'm not sure what the PC government sworn in today has to do with it.
I never said they had anything to do with it, please read my posts. I said MTS was a reason that prices were currently lower in MB (due to increased competition by a non-Big-3 provider), and that it becoming part of Bell means less competition and higher prices. I'm not sure where you got the privatization or PC angle from toward me, I never said anything about it. Unless you thought because I mentioned Sasktel as a reason why SK has low rates also, but that's because it's also a non-Big-3 provider, not because it's part of the government (though that also helps since there is less profit motive).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted May 3, 2016, 11:38 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,284
I never meant to imply that towards you. Sorry about that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 2:19 AM
vjose32 vjose32 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325 View Post
Yes, so I'm not sure what the PC government sworn in today has to do with it.
Probably not much to do with it but it is definitely a coincidence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 2:53 AM
Chrisforpm Chrisforpm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by vjose32 View Post
Probably not much to do with it but it is definitely a coincidence.
The PC's have zero to do with it. Communications is federal jurisdiction, so is regulation over said industry. The provincial govt has absolutely no say in it whatsoever. This would have happened regardless if the NDP, liberals or Greens formed govt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 2:44 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,679
Yeah there was just a comment earlier in the discussions, maybe in another thread, about how the PC's were in power for one day and MTS is sold. It was a joke, that's all. Obviously they had nothing to do with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 4:01 PM
Jammon's Avatar
Jammon Jammon is offline
jammon member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
Yeah there was just a comment earlier in the discussions, maybe in another thread, about how the PC's were in power for one day and MTS is sold. It was a joke, that's all. Obviously they had nothing to do with it.
I was the one who said it. There were a lot of parallels drawn in the media with the deal having gone into play the day before the election. Gary Filmon sat on the Board of Directors of MTS (although I don't believe he still does) under a company that his government promised not to privatize. If that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is. The whole thing just reeks to me a la Sam Katz type of deal. No matter, it's a done deal. The BOD and shareholders will undoubtedly approve the sale- it would be the CRTC, in my mind, that could stop it, but I don't see that happening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 4:01 PM
The Unknown Poster The Unknown Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 996
Not sure if it was here or what I read in the paper, but one request the regulators might make is for Bell to sell off part of MTS' wireless business to Shaw rather than Telus. That would keep 4 players in Manitoba. But it also would give Shaw a leg up and surely Bell wants no part of that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 4:17 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammon View Post
I was the one who said it. There were a lot of parallels drawn in the media with the deal having gone into play the day before the election. Gary Filmon sat on the Board of Directors of MTS (although I don't believe he still does) under a company that his government promised not to privatize. If that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is. The whole thing just reeks to me a la Sam Katz type of deal. No matter, it's a done deal. The BOD and shareholders will undoubtedly approve the sale- it would be the CRTC, in my mind, that could stop it, but I don't see that happening.
Are you talking the current sale of MTS to Bell? Or the original privatization?

MTS is now a private company so they can do whatever they want, in terms of proposing a sale. Nothing to do with the PC's. In terms of the original sale, i was maybe 12 at the time, so really have no clue how it went down. I was more concerned with building Lego and playing minor hockey.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 4:43 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Festivus View Post
My understanding was that this could actually trigger a situation where Shaw attempts to dump Wind. I'll try and look up the reasoning on that (as it seemed counter-intuitive to me when I heard it).
I'd love to hear this reasoning. Because this would shock me a) because that would be the second time in less than 5 years Shaw has bought and sold wireless/spectrum; b) because they have to know going forward wireless is the key as more and more people cut the cord.

Also lost in all of this, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, is that Manitoba really has only ever had a "Big 3." There's never been 4 major players here. Bell has only been in this market for about 3 years now, and Virgin and Fido both have more subscribers here. Sure, the Canadian Big 3 are technically already here, but Bell's influence was laughable. Using the 4-to-3 argument is a little bit ridiculous. I do think prices will go up a lot, but I think that it's Telus that has kept them down.

The interesting thing to me is that no one will want to be the first company to make that big jump, but they all can't do it at the same time because then they may actually get caught price fixing for once.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 5:01 PM
Chrisforpm Chrisforpm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 106
There seems to be an insinuation that because we now have a PC government that the sale of MTS can proceed much easier than if the NDP were in power.

In reality it doesn't matter who makes up the provincial govt. There is very little any party could do (with the exception of making a fuss) to change the outcome. It's a federal issue regulated by several departments that are supposed to remain impartial on these matters.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 5:04 PM
The Unknown Poster The Unknown Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrisforpm View Post
There seems to be an insinuation that because we now have a PC government that the sale of MTS can proceed much easier than if the NDP were in power.

In reality it doesn't matter who makes up the provincial govt. There is very little any party could do (with the exception of making a fuss) to change the outcome. It's a federal issue regulated by several departments that are supposed to remain impartial on these matters.
And the feeling is the Liberals are cozy with Bell. Whereas the Harper government was more inclined to push for 4 carriers per region.

Perhaps Shaw should be lobbying to get some of MTS wireless customers as part of the deal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 5:15 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,876
As citizens anyone can also file intervener status and make a presentation on the pending sale of MTS. Make sure you focus on the right issues and the right group though if you do intend to file. Talking about broadband service at the review focusing on wireless spectrum for example isn't the right venue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 5:50 PM
vjose32 vjose32 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Festivus View Post
My understanding was that this could actually trigger a situation where Shaw attempts to dump Wind. I'll try and look up the reasoning on that (as it seemed counter-intuitive to me when I heard it).
Why would they do that after spending so much money. Also having wireless is a big thing for a large company like that. Now they have it why let it go? Would only hurt them in the long run.
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 7:54 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.