HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 6:38 PM
Jammon's Avatar
Jammon Jammon is offline
jammon member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Posts: 659
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.

Of course it does- you even gave the answer in your post! If the NDP were still holding power, they would be much more likely to make a public display about how this would hurt Manitoba. They would be a lot more likely to appeal to Manitobans to write and express their concern over the sale of MTS. With the PC government, they are likely to support it, so it garners more political support under a PC regime and has a greater chance of moving forward without stern public opposition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 6:59 PM
cheswick's Avatar
cheswick cheswick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South Kildonan
Posts: 2,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammon View Post
Of course it does- you even gave the answer in your post! If the NDP were still holding power, they would be much more likely to make a public display about how this would hurt Manitoba. They would be a lot more likely to appeal to Manitobans to write and express their concern over the sale of MTS. With the PC government, they are likely to support it, so it garners more political support under a PC regime and has a greater chance of moving forward without stern public opposition.
Why does not holding power not allow the NDP to appeal to Manitobans to write and express their concern over the sale of MTS? Which of their 14 MLA's have come out against this sale?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 7:03 PM
Festivus Festivus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
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.
I think it's less about having 4 competitors than it is about having independent competitors. And by that I mean companies that don't collude and price-fix like Bell/Rogers/Telus do. In Saskatchewan we really only had Sasktel and Rogers and Telus for a long time (with small ones like Fido, etc), and now Bell is here too (though Sasktel dominates). But it's Sasktel that keeps it cheap here, not the lower number (historically) of competitors.

For prices to be cheap you need open competition. I'm not so naive as to believe any market has truly open competition, but some are more open than others. In some places like ON you have almost open collusion, while in places like SK you still have prices that are far too high (compared to similar-density areas in the US/EU, etc), but much lower than ON. The solution to high prices is either more competition that doesn't collude with the existing major players.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 7:53 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,876
For me, the Bell purchase is less about losing a wireless competitor as it is about the huge barriers it puts in place for a fourth wireless competitor ever entering the wireless market in Manitoba. Due to how the wireless spectrum was allocated MTS was allowed to grab the piece that was supposed to be set aside for "new entrants". The Bell deal would see that spectrum transferred to Bell. That means if a fourth carrier wanted to start operations in Manitoba it would be impossible for them to run their own towers. Without being able to run their own towers the fourth carrier would then have to buy access wholesale from one of the big three. That is a horrible situation to be in.

End of the day, on the wireless side, the Bell purchase would move MB from one of the best provinces in the country to one of the worst, and it isn't just about monthly bill costs or the short term outlook.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 7:57 PM
The Unknown Poster The Unknown Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoryB View Post
For me, the Bell purchase is less about losing a wireless competitor as it is about the huge barriers it puts in place for a fourth wireless competitor ever entering the wireless market in Manitoba. Due to how the wireless spectrum was allocated MTS was allowed to grab the piece that was supposed to be set aside for "new entrants". The Bell deal would see that spectrum transferred to Bell. That means if a fourth carrier wanted to start operations in Manitoba it would be impossible for them to run their own towers. Without being able to run their own towers the fourth carrier would then have to buy access wholesale from one of the big three. That is a horrible situation to be in.

End of the day, on the wireless side, the Bell purchase would move MB from one of the best provinces in the country to one of the worst, and it isn't just about monthly bill costs or the short term outlook.
Depending on what SHAW does with WIND...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 8:14 PM
roccerfeller's Avatar
roccerfeller roccerfeller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: BC
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster View Post
Depending on what SHAW does with WIND...
Is wind even in Manitoba though? If I understand CoryB's worry correctly, this would prevent a fourth player, such as Wind, from even entering Manitoba in the first place
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 9:13 PM
Ando Ando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTA in Winnipeg View Post
Given that the mandate of the federal government was to have at least 4 players in each market, why would they ever approve of such a pairing? This will certainly change:
I love it when someone injects actual facts into these threads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 10:19 PM
Chrisforpm Chrisforpm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammon View Post
Of course it does- you even gave the answer in your post! If the NDP were still holding power, they would be much more likely to make a public display about how this would hurt Manitoba. They would be a lot more likely to appeal to Manitobans to write and express their concern over the sale of MTS. With the PC government, they are likely to support it, so it garners more political support under a PC regime and has a greater chance of moving forward without stern public opposition.
This is a federal matter concerning a locally owned private company. It doesn't matter what the provincial parties say either in government or opposition. There are rules that businesses must abide by in regards to their CRTC license and industry Canada competition rules. If the federal regulator believes that this sale meets the conditions the Feds have in place, it goes through. Now of course, they are free to set conditions or block it all together. It is very likely conditions will be imposed but highly unlikely it will be blocked (they will say competition exists with Telus and Rogers but we all know it's not real competition).

Do you honestly think if Greg Selinger were still premier he could magically call up the federal Industry minister and order him to block it? Not likely. He would most likely indicate that he was going to watch how the sale would proceed, knowing he couldn't block it and ensure he didn't piss off Bell. After all, we want those jobs to stay (and possibly expand).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 4, 2016, 11:52 PM
Bluenote Bluenote is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg / St Vital
Posts: 1,101
Sob. And I gave my 15 year old contract with Rogers to my wife and I am stuck with MTS.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 12:50 AM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Hmm....
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrisforpm View Post
This is a federal matter concerning a locally owned private company. It doesn't matter what the provincial parties say either in government or opposition. There are rules that businesses must abide by in regards to their CRTC license and industry Canada competition rules. If the federal regulator believes that this sale meets the conditions the Feds have in place, it goes through. Now of course, they are free to set conditions or block it all together. It is very likely conditions will be imposed but highly unlikely it will be blocked (they will say competition exists with Telus and Rogers but we all know it's not real competition).

Do you honestly think if Greg Selinger were still premier he could magically call up the federal Industry minister and order him to block it? Not likely. He would most likely indicate that he was going to watch how the sale would proceed, knowing he couldn't block it and ensure he didn't piss off Bell. After all, we want those jobs to stay (and possibly expand).
I'm really not on either side of this argument... but as a comparable... Brad Wall was heavily opposed to the sale of Potash Corp to BHP Billiton a few years ago. He had absolutely no jurisdiction in the end to actually stand in the way as the sale of a company would be handled by federal rules. However, his opposition caused enough of an uproar that the federal government eventually was compelled blocked the purchase.

This is of course a bit of a different situation being telco rather than resource and 2 domestic companies rather than a domestic and international, but it's not unheard of for a provincial government to be able to make waves. Wall may have had more influence on Harper than either a PC or NDP premier in MB might have with Trudeau... but this tangent is all hypothetical anyway...


And my first thought on the news of this purchase and reading the infrastructure investment plans Bell has going forward was that it would definitely give them an excuse to push Manitoba mobile prices up to the national average rather than the ManSask level. It'll be interesting to watch this play out though.

Also, I'm not sure why some people are talking about Fido or Virgin as if they are additional players in the market... Bell owns Virgin; Rogers owns Fido, Chatr, and Mobilicity; and Telus owns Public Mobile and Koodo. WIND owned by Shaw would be the only provider listed in this thread that is independent of the Big 3 (not including MTS and Sasktel of course).

Last edited by Nathan; May 5, 2016 at 1:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 2:23 AM
OTA in Winnipeg's Avatar
OTA in Winnipeg OTA in Winnipeg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Silver Heights
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan View Post
I'm really not on either side of this argument... but as a comparable... Brad Wall was heavily opposed to the sale of Potash Corp to BHP Billiton a few years ago. He had absolutely no jurisdiction in the end to actually stand in the way as the sale of a company would be handled by federal rules. However, his opposition caused enough of an uproar that the federal government eventually was compelled blocked the purchase.

This is of course a bit of a different situation being telco rather than resource and 2 domestic companies rather than a domestic and international, but it's not unheard of for a provincial government to be able to make waves. Wall may have had more influence on Harper than either a PC or NDP premier in MB might have with Trudeau... but this tangent is all hypothetical anyway...


And my first thought on the news of this purchase and reading the infrastructure investment plans Bell has going forward was that it would definitely give them an excuse to push Manitoba mobile prices up to the national average rather than the ManSask level. It'll be interesting to watch this play out though.

Also, I'm not sure why some people are talking about Fido or Virgin as if they are additional players in the market... Bell owns Virgin; Rogers owns Fido, Chatr, and Mobilicity; and Telus owns Public Mobile and Koodo. WIND owned by Shaw would be the only provider listed in this thread that is independent of the Big 3 (not including MTS and Sasktel of course).
All of that and this.We need to make some bloody noise! I've already lodged my complaint!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 2:34 AM
1ajs's Avatar
1ajs 1ajs is online now
ʇɥƃıuʞ -*ʞpʇ*-
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: lynn lake
Posts: 25,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by roccerfeller View Post
Is wind even in Manitoba though? If I understand CoryB's worry correctly, this would prevent a fourth player, such as Wind, from even entering Manitoba in the first place
wind had lease holds all over the place bunch of them expired last summer
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 6:30 AM
casper casper is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 8,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by roccerfeller View Post
Is wind even in Manitoba though? If I understand CoryB's worry correctly, this would prevent a fourth player, such as Wind, from even entering Manitoba in the first place
The issue is what the competition authorities say about they deal. Prior to approving the merger/takeover they may require Bell to divest of some spectrum to any third party that wants to buy in. The logical purchaser would be Shaw.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 1:35 PM
Dougler306 Dougler306 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Regina
Posts: 451
I was hoping Sasktel, even tho there a crown and I believe cannot purchase other company's but an exception could have been made to try and take a run at MTS, would have been the best choice for any type of major expansion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 2:38 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dougler306 View Post
I was hoping Sasktel, even tho there a crown and I believe cannot purchase other company's but an exception could have been made to try and take a run at MTS, would have been the best choice for any type of major expansion.
It's hard to imagine a provincial crown taking on such a big business in another province... has that ever been done? Where would SaskTel even get $4 billion to buy MTS?

I think that the only realistic way that would have worked is if the Sask government privatized SaskTel and then negotiated a merger with MTS, with the end result being a significant regional telco.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 3:33 PM
The Unknown Poster The Unknown Poster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 996
I know a few employees lamented that Sasktel and MTS would have made a nice partnership.

I could see the government wanting the wireless to go to Shaw, rather than telus. But that would make Shaw virtually even playing field with Bell here and remove Bell's bundling options.

The major MTS union sent out a statement to members which essentially says they know nothing. One interesting issue is that the Unifor contract expires right around when this deal would be closing. So Bell might take over a company without an existing collective agreement for the bulk of its work force. That is a concern for employees.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 3:59 PM
roccerfeller's Avatar
roccerfeller roccerfeller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: BC
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper View Post
The issue is what the competition authorities say about they deal. Prior to approving the merger/takeover they may require Bell to divest of some spectrum to any third party that wants to buy in. The logical purchaser would be Shaw.
Hopefully, that would be the case.

There is a chance that in order to stay competitive with current MB pricing, Bell would keep things as they are - Telus and Rogers have more competitive pricing in MB right now, and could see maintaining the status quo as a positive business opportunity perhaps?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dougler306 View Post
I was hoping Sasktel, even tho there a crown and I believe cannot purchase other company's but an exception could have been made to try and take a run at MTS, would have been the best choice for any type of major expansion.
Sasktel is a slightly smaller company than MTS, so highly unlikely they would have been able to.

Instead something along the lines of a merger would have made more sense on paper...though that too would have resulted with some clippings of the workforce on both sides. It remains to be seen how this could be positive for Manitobans including Bell's claims with positioning MB to have their western HQ, as first off the deal needs to be approved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster View Post
I know a few employees lamented that Sasktel and MTS would have made a nice partnership.

I could see the government wanting the wireless to go to Shaw, rather than telus. But that would make Shaw virtually even playing field with Bell here and remove Bell's bundling options.

The major MTS union sent out a statement to members which essentially says they know nothing. One interesting issue is that the Unifor contract expires right around when this deal would be closing. So Bell might take over a company without an existing collective agreement for the bulk of its work force. That is a concern for employees.
Must be an anxious situation for a lot of people. Here's hoping Bell maintains status quo as much as possible with their "western headquarters" claim
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 4:00 PM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Hmm....
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
It's hard to imagine a provincial crown taking on such a big business in another province... has that ever been done? Where would SaskTel even get $4 billion to buy MTS?

I think that the only realistic way that would have worked is if the Sask government privatized SaskTel and then negotiated a merger with MTS, with the end result being a significant regional telco.
Yeah, I'm thinking that'd be the only way too. Sasktel has had some operations outside the province, but nothing to this scale. Although I suppose Sasktel could finance a takeover through debt instruments, but for all intents and purposes, they would be Provincial bonds, and the Sask Party wouldn't want that hitting the summary financials, especially now...

SGI is the only other crown with business elsewhere as far as I know.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 4:03 PM
Stormer's Avatar
Stormer Stormer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 7,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
It's hard to imagine a provincial crown taking on such a big business in another province... has that ever been done? Where would SaskTel even get $4 billion to buy MTS?

I think that the only realistic way that would have worked is if the Sask government privatized SaskTel and then negotiated a merger with MTS, with the end result being a significant regional telco.
SaskTel is actually more valuable than MTS. The merged entity would have to remain a listed company. It would basically be a privatization of SaskTel. This would have been a smaller version of the deal that created Telus. They could have gradually expanded nationwide and have been that 4th carrier the CRTC dreams about. The CRTC would have made life easy for ST/MTS.

SaskTel really has few options now. It can't remain independent forever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted May 5, 2016, 4:09 PM
CoryB CoryB is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 5,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by roccerfeller View Post
Is wind even in Manitoba though? If I understand CoryB's worry correctly, this would prevent a fourth player, such as Wind, from even entering Manitoba in the first place
The issue is what the competition authorities say about they deal. Prior to approving the merger/takeover they may require Bell to divest of some spectrum to any third party that wants to buy in. The logical purchaser would be Shaw.

The BCE deal, as currently proposed, includes the acquisition on all MTS owned wireless spectrum, including the spectrum specifically set aside for new entrants. Due to its status as a limited regional player MTS was allowed by Industry Canada to purchase the new entrant spectrum. BCE/Bell as an established provider with a national presence was not allowed to directly purchase that spectrum.

The wireless spectrum in Manitoba, on a high level is now entirely allocated and held by Rogers, Telus, MTS and Bell. After the sale there will be no wireless spectrum available for Wind or any other fourth carrier in Manitoba. This would mean they would need to either purchase spectrum or buy services through wholesale from Rogers, Telus or Bell.

Outside of the wireless side of the deal BCE's purchase of MTS would effectively maintain or improve on what is offered today, at least in the eyes of the regulatory approval reviews. People might want to talk about how the wired broadband data caps are unfair and anti-consumer but as no level of government has stepped in to stop that as an issue with Bell in other regions it is unlikely to be substantial enough justification to block this sale.

Ideally, Industry Canada, as part of their review of the wireless spectrum ownership transfer, will conditionally approve the deal on BCE transferring ownership to an approved new entrant or surrendering specific blocks of wireless spectrum to Industry Canada with no funds due to BCE in return.

From the Industry Canada review on competition, hopefully the feedback is that the 1/3 transfer of wireless subscribers as proposed by BCE is acceptable however instead of those subscribers being allocated to Telus they are to be transferred to an approved new entrant (aka Wind).
As part of the initial process Wind Mobile purchased spectrum rights in Manitoba. Eventually due to the challenges of starting up a wireless carrier from scratch they started running in financial issues. To offset their on-going operational costs they sold they spectrum in Manitoba to MTS with Industry Canada approval before ever starting operations here.
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 6:09 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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