3 ms·

I agree with you in concept, but I don't know that the geography fully explains the discrepancy. As an example, there are government incentives to do the build

I agree with you in concept, but I don't know that the geography fully explains the discrepancy. As an example, there are government incentives to do the build out to more rural areas, but that might be true in the US as well. We also tried to implement more carriers several years ago, with a wireless spectrum auction that reserved spectrum for new entrants. These startups tried to focus solely on urban areas with their build outs, and then could roam on the big 3, but struggled immensely. IIRC, one of the big complaints was we don't allow foreign ownership, which made it difficult to raise the immense capital needed for a proper build out. How much that plays into it I don't know, but unless Canadians want to put together a massive amount of capital it seems unlikely to force stronger competition.

Scoundreller 6y ago
Wind mobile was doomed because they were issued 1.7ghz spectrum. That’s going to make any urban-area buildout prohibitively expensive because it doesn’t penetrate well.
- smachiz 6y ago
  That's actually the inverse of the problem. Yes, 1.7Ghz doesn't penetrate well, but in cities you want density, because you have population density. Low band is still useful, but not nearly as advantaged as in rural areas. In rural areas, using 1.7Ghz vs 600Mhz or 700Mhz spectrum means building 4x the amount of towers to cover the same square miles. That's opex, capex *4. It's really expensive, with no benefits at all as you're not capacity constrained at all on radios/spectrum in rural areas.