7 ms·

For a long period of time, these companies would not publicly commit to going ahead without Huawei for 5G, and despite pressure from the US (and warnings from C

For a long period of time, these companies would not publicly commit to going ahead without Huawei for 5G, and despite pressure from the US (and warnings from CSIS), the Canadian government still has not made an announcement about whether Huawei would be restricted as a supplier. Many Canadians were frustrated by this, feeling like they didn't want Huawei networks but that they weren't being heard. It occurs to me now that had any of those steps been taken before reaching a deal with Ericsson, it would have given Ericsson a much stronger bargaining position and they probably could have charged a lot more. This isn't the first time where I've felt frustrated, unheard, and kept in the dark, only to later realize that there may have been important considerations that I just wasn't aware of.

Scoundreller 6y ago
Just goes to show that Canadian telecom policy is controlled by telecoms, not by the government. It's very cozy and regularly functions to discourage competition. Canadian telecom policy still revolves around "facilities-based competition", where it's believed that new entrants should build out a new network. It's designed to fail. Even the incumbents, Bell and Telus, share a 3G/4G mobile network to avoid redundant infrastructure. Ironically, the two contracted Huawei and Nokia to build out this network: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/bell-teams-up-with-rival-telus-on-3g/article1200256/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/bell-teams-up-wit... Huawei was marketing 5G directly to Canadian consumers for a while, but was careful to never mention/imply that 5G could lower pricing. That would be a thermonuclear threat to telecoms with dire consequences.
- jbay808 6y ago
  I agree with all your points, but does this go to show that? I'm not aware of what was going on behind the scenes. It could easily have been that the Canadian government told the telecoms a long time ago that they wouldn't be allowed to use Huawei, but kept this secret for the sake of contract negotiations. Do you know this not to be the case?
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    > It could easily have been that the Canadian government told the telecoms a long time ago that they wouldn't be allowed to use Huawei, but kept this secret for the sake of contract negotiations. I figure the government ran its Huawei-ban proposal by the telcos and they balked and said: "don't regulate it, we'll just not choose them". It's a direct access to government influence that the public could only dream of. Meanwhile, the public gets told "well, if you don't like being ignored when new laws are created/passed, vote for someone else in [0-4] years". Basically, just pissed that CDN telecoms get to craft the law (or lack thereof) in their favour.
    - jbay808 6y ago
      Wouldn't it have been more in their favour to choose Huawei, at presumably much lower cost? It's not like consumers who didn't like that idea could switch to someone else. The only explanation I can think of is that the government called the shots here, while sparing the telecos from a tough negotiating position.
      - Scoundreller 6y ago
        I think the directive came to not use Huawei, and the telecoms structured it as “ok, we just won’t select Huawei” instead of “Gov bans Huawei”.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > Just goes to show that Canadian telecom policy is controlled by telecoms, not by the government. It's very cozy and regularly functions to discourage competition. It's easy to say that, but Canada has a smaller population than California, but spread over the surface area larger than that of the United States. How many carriers, and how much competition, can you possibly expect in that environment? Especially in an industry that requires so much infrastructure. Canada at the national level has Bell, Telus and Rogers/Fido. There's a few more regional players like Freedom Mobile, and then there's Videotron in Quebec. Then on top of that there's the former Crown Corporation (now subsidiary of Bell/BCE) NorthwesTel, which provides services in the Territories (i.e the north of the north, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut).
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > It's easy to say that, but Canada has a smaller population than California, but spread over the surface area larger than that of the United States. That is an extremely misleading statement. Approximately 75% of Canada's population lives within 150km of the US border, and even that is not a uniform distribution , there are dense urban population clusters.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Totally, I know that, but even with that, the density isn't comparable. I mean, how many Californias can you fit into this coverage map? [1] I'm guessing a lot of Californias -- Alberta alone is 1.67 Californias by land area. And then there's the geography. You can drive to each major point in California in a couple hours, but it's not as easy to get to Moose Factory or Fort Mac, let alone lay the backhaul to supply the towers in the middle of absolutely nowhere. [1] https://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Our_network_coverage https://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Our_network_coverage
    - atupis 6y ago
      Also here Finland I am paying 22 euros for unlimited 150mbit/s 4g connection and population density is pretty similar to Ontario.
    - 6y ago
- saltedonion 6y ago
  -Canadian telecom policy still revolves around "facilities-based competition", where it's believed that new entrants should build out a new network. Didn’t CRTC force the incumbents to sell wholesale network access to new players like Freedom Mobile?
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    It was at punitive pricing, to the point where you feared going off network. For example, Wind (Freedom's name at the time) charged 5c/mb for data ($50/gb). And Wind absolutely would not let you connect to the incumbents network if you were in the "Home" zone. I think the voice pricing out-of-network was okay, but the incumbents definitely cooked the books on their costs on data. They once had a plan for $39 with 6gb data and unlimited calls/LD in-network and anywhere in USA. But it had small limits for out-of-network in Canada. Meanwhile, they incumbents charge cheap-enough prices to American or French providers so they can allow their subscribers roam in Canada with many gb included in the base plan. A French subscriber roaming in Canada would have 5x the data as a local plan at half the cost.
    - saltedonion 6y ago
      I remember reading the roaming deals are sweetheart deals that goes both ways. So similarity, the French telecoms would charge Canadian incumbents a very low price while roaming on France.
- grecy 6y ago
  > Just goes to show that Canadian telecom policy is controlled by telecoms, not by the government I worked for a (very) large Canadian telcom for 4 years. What you said is absolutely 100% correct. In my region my employer was forced to allow competition in the internet space, and they submitted rates to the CRTC that were astronomical. The CRTC replied and said they would force them to lower the rates, so my employer said they would stop building out their fibre network expansion. The CRTC caved, the telco got it's way, and to this day the ISP with the largest operating area of any on the planet has zero competition.
- refurb 6y ago
  People complain about the lack of cell phone providers here in the US, but damn! Canada is way worse. The cost of phone plans is outrageous and the major telecoms do everything in their power to stop new entrants from messing up their gravy train.
  - humanlion87 6y ago
    I think it's far more difficult to build a competitive network in Canada vs the US. Canada is as big as the US, but has 1/10th the population. Building and maintaining infrastructure for low-density population areas is extremely capital intensive. I am not saying the existing Telco oligopoly is a good or ideal situation. Just mentioning that US and Canada have some differences in this regard
    - Scoundreller 6y ago
      Most of the low-density population areas aren't covered anyway. By landmass, it's single-digit percentages or low double-digit percentages of coverage (And often it's weak outside of urban/suburban area). One of the least dense provinces, Saskatchewan, has some of the best pricing in the country because the government has yet to selloff the provincial telecom to private investors. Manitoba too before they decided to privatize and sell off to an incumbent. And high-density is no panacea for cost. Tall concrete buildings everywhere can mean more infrastructure costs. Especially if regulations require you to fit infrastructure into the facade. Medium-density is the least engineering: Just put up a tower and call it a day. And in Canada, antenna permits are federal. Once issued, local govs can't stop you from putting up your monstrosity of white panels on a midrise or a big metal antenna. But you don't have to just compare Canada against the USA. Australia or Iceland have rates that Canadians can only dream of, with similarly geo-population situations.
      - SuperPaintMan 6y ago
        There's a reason we fight hard for our crown corperations out here in Saskatchewan, if this was left to the market we would be screwed. The farther away from populated centers you get, the harder it is to get decent service however. I grew up out in Melville, SK where the fastest connections at the time were 15mbps DSL connections (this was around the time that Google Fiber was starting to roll out elsewhere). Once you get farther out, copper isn't even an option so cellular and satellite links are needed. The only nice thing about fiber is digging up ditches is relatively cheap Some of us are excited to see how systems such as StarLink develop, maybe bringing decent rural access to the network is in the cards. Next time you make a page that requires 10Mb of assets before loading, please remember there are people dealing with terrible connections. I know my first 100mbps connection was a godsend.
Scoundreller 6y ago
Oh, and don't worry, Bell, Telus and Rogers still sell Huawei phones to consumers. Probably helps them hammer down other Android phone manufacturers on price.
- jbay808 6y ago
  I don't have an issue with Huawei phones being available. I have the option not to buy them. It's not the same as network equipment.
  - harpratap 6y ago
    If the telecom industry in Canada was competitive enough, you would have had the choice. Like in South Korea LG Plus is using Huawei while others are using Nokia or Ericsson
    - jbay808 6y ago
      You're not wrong about this, but it still doesn't bother me that they offer Huawei handsets. I just wish they'd offer Sony's...
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    But if Huawei is a Chinese spy, shouldn't the government put some restrictions on that too for public benefit? But they can't with the ban-but-not-a-ban on Huawei. It would be too obvious that there was a ban if providers scrubbed Huawei consumer products entirely, and those consumers pay the price. And while you have the option to not buy them, it's not so easy to avoid communication with anyone with a Huawei device.
    - jbay808 6y ago
      They just have to ban them from secure zones / departments, and companies that value their security can ban them internally. If you don't trust who you're communicating with to follow the same measures, then you shouldn't be sending them your secrets.

Scoundreller 6y ago

Just goes to show that Canadian telecom policy is controlled by telecoms, not by the government. It's very cozy and regularly functions to discourage competition. Canadian telecom policy still revolves around "facilities-based competition", where it's believed that new entrants should build out a new network. It's designed to fail. Even the incumbents, Bell and Telus, share a 3G/4G mobile network to avoid redundant infrastructure. Ironically, the two contracted Huawei and Nokia to build out this network: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/bell-teams-up-with-rival-telus-on-3g/article1200256/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/bell-teams-up-wit... Huawei was marketing 5G directly to Canadian consumers for a while, but was careful to never mention/imply that 5G could lower pricing. That would be a thermonuclear threat to telecoms with dire consequences.

jbay808 6y ago
I agree with all your points, but does this go to show that? I'm not aware of what was going on behind the scenes. It could easily have been that the Canadian government told the telecoms a long time ago that they wouldn't be allowed to use Huawei, but kept this secret for the sake of contract negotiations. Do you know this not to be the case?
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  > It could easily have been that the Canadian government told the telecoms a long time ago that they wouldn't be allowed to use Huawei, but kept this secret for the sake of contract negotiations. I figure the government ran its Huawei-ban proposal by the telcos and they balked and said: "don't regulate it, we'll just not choose them". It's a direct access to government influence that the public could only dream of. Meanwhile, the public gets told "well, if you don't like being ignored when new laws are created/passed, vote for someone else in [0-4] years". Basically, just pissed that CDN telecoms get to craft the law (or lack thereof) in their favour.
  - jbay808 6y ago
    Wouldn't it have been more in their favour to choose Huawei, at presumably much lower cost? It's not like consumers who didn't like that idea could switch to someone else. The only explanation I can think of is that the government called the shots here, while sparing the telecos from a tough negotiating position.
    - Scoundreller 6y ago
      I think the directive came to not use Huawei, and the telecoms structured it as “ok, we just won’t select Huawei” instead of “Gov bans Huawei”.
arcticbull 6y ago
> Just goes to show that Canadian telecom policy is controlled by telecoms, not by the government. It's very cozy and regularly functions to discourage competition. It's easy to say that, but Canada has a smaller population than California, but spread over the surface area larger than that of the United States. How many carriers, and how much competition, can you possibly expect in that environment? Especially in an industry that requires so much infrastructure. Canada at the national level has Bell, Telus and Rogers/Fido. There's a few more regional players like Freedom Mobile, and then there's Videotron in Quebec. Then on top of that there's the former Crown Corporation (now subsidiary of Bell/BCE) NorthwesTel, which provides services in the Territories (i.e the north of the north, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut).
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > It's easy to say that, but Canada has a smaller population than California, but spread over the surface area larger than that of the United States. That is an extremely misleading statement. Approximately 75% of Canada's population lives within 150km of the US border, and even that is not a uniform distribution , there are dense urban population clusters.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Totally, I know that, but even with that, the density isn't comparable. I mean, how many Californias can you fit into this coverage map? [1] I'm guessing a lot of Californias -- Alberta alone is 1.67 Californias by land area. And then there's the geography. You can drive to each major point in California in a couple hours, but it's not as easy to get to Moose Factory or Fort Mac, let alone lay the backhaul to supply the towers in the middle of absolutely nowhere. [1] https://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Our_network_coverage https://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Our_network_coverage
  - atupis 6y ago
    Also here Finland I am paying 22 euros for unlimited 150mbit/s 4g connection and population density is pretty similar to Ontario.
  - 6y ago
saltedonion 6y ago
-Canadian telecom policy still revolves around "facilities-based competition", where it's believed that new entrants should build out a new network. Didn’t CRTC force the incumbents to sell wholesale network access to new players like Freedom Mobile?
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  It was at punitive pricing, to the point where you feared going off network. For example, Wind (Freedom's name at the time) charged 5c/mb for data ($50/gb). And Wind absolutely would not let you connect to the incumbents network if you were in the "Home" zone. I think the voice pricing out-of-network was okay, but the incumbents definitely cooked the books on their costs on data. They once had a plan for $39 with 6gb data and unlimited calls/LD in-network and anywhere in USA. But it had small limits for out-of-network in Canada. Meanwhile, they incumbents charge cheap-enough prices to American or French providers so they can allow their subscribers roam in Canada with many gb included in the base plan. A French subscriber roaming in Canada would have 5x the data as a local plan at half the cost.
  - saltedonion 6y ago
    I remember reading the roaming deals are sweetheart deals that goes both ways. So similarity, the French telecoms would charge Canadian incumbents a very low price while roaming on France.
grecy 6y ago
> Just goes to show that Canadian telecom policy is controlled by telecoms, not by the government I worked for a (very) large Canadian telcom for 4 years. What you said is absolutely 100% correct. In my region my employer was forced to allow competition in the internet space, and they submitted rates to the CRTC that were astronomical. The CRTC replied and said they would force them to lower the rates, so my employer said they would stop building out their fibre network expansion. The CRTC caved, the telco got it's way, and to this day the ISP with the largest operating area of any on the planet has zero competition.
refurb 6y ago
People complain about the lack of cell phone providers here in the US, but damn! Canada is way worse. The cost of phone plans is outrageous and the major telecoms do everything in their power to stop new entrants from messing up their gravy train.
- humanlion87 6y ago
  I think it's far more difficult to build a competitive network in Canada vs the US. Canada is as big as the US, but has 1/10th the population. Building and maintaining infrastructure for low-density population areas is extremely capital intensive. I am not saying the existing Telco oligopoly is a good or ideal situation. Just mentioning that US and Canada have some differences in this regard
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    Most of the low-density population areas aren't covered anyway. By landmass, it's single-digit percentages or low double-digit percentages of coverage (And often it's weak outside of urban/suburban area). One of the least dense provinces, Saskatchewan, has some of the best pricing in the country because the government has yet to selloff the provincial telecom to private investors. Manitoba too before they decided to privatize and sell off to an incumbent. And high-density is no panacea for cost. Tall concrete buildings everywhere can mean more infrastructure costs. Especially if regulations require you to fit infrastructure into the facade. Medium-density is the least engineering: Just put up a tower and call it a day. And in Canada, antenna permits are federal. Once issued, local govs can't stop you from putting up your monstrosity of white panels on a midrise or a big metal antenna. But you don't have to just compare Canada against the USA. Australia or Iceland have rates that Canadians can only dream of, with similarly geo-population situations.
    - SuperPaintMan 6y ago
      There's a reason we fight hard for our crown corperations out here in Saskatchewan, if this was left to the market we would be screwed. The farther away from populated centers you get, the harder it is to get decent service however. I grew up out in Melville, SK where the fastest connections at the time were 15mbps DSL connections (this was around the time that Google Fiber was starting to roll out elsewhere). Once you get farther out, copper isn't even an option so cellular and satellite links are needed. The only nice thing about fiber is digging up ditches is relatively cheap Some of us are excited to see how systems such as StarLink develop, maybe bringing decent rural access to the network is in the cards. Next time you make a page that requires 10Mb of assets before loading, please remember there are people dealing with terrible connections. I know my first 100mbps connection was a godsend.

Scoundreller 6y ago

Oh, and don't worry, Bell, Telus and Rogers still sell Huawei phones to consumers. Probably helps them hammer down other Android phone manufacturers on price.

jbay808 6y ago
I don't have an issue with Huawei phones being available. I have the option not to buy them. It's not the same as network equipment.
- harpratap 6y ago
  If the telecom industry in Canada was competitive enough, you would have had the choice. Like in South Korea LG Plus is using Huawei while others are using Nokia or Ericsson
  - jbay808 6y ago
    You're not wrong about this, but it still doesn't bother me that they offer Huawei handsets. I just wish they'd offer Sony's...
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  But if Huawei is a Chinese spy, shouldn't the government put some restrictions on that too for public benefit? But they can't with the ban-but-not-a-ban on Huawei. It would be too obvious that there was a ban if providers scrubbed Huawei consumer products entirely, and those consumers pay the price. And while you have the option to not buy them, it's not so easy to avoid communication with anyone with a Huawei device.
  - jbay808 6y ago
    They just have to ban them from secure zones / departments, and companies that value their security can ban them internally. If you don't trust who you're communicating with to follow the same measures, then you shouldn't be sending them your secrets.