4 ms·

Ontario has a density of 14 people per square km, not square mile. Saskatchewan has a density of 1.9 people per square km yet has cheaper rates. And go look at

Ontario has a density of 14 people per square km, not square mile. Saskatchewan has a density of 1.9 people per square km yet has cheaper rates. And go look at a coverage map. The big 3 don't cover huge swaths of places including most of Nunavut, heck even Northern Ontario is not well covered. It's an excuse. Again Australia has similar low density with people mainly concentrated in a few cities yet rates are considerably cheaper. Taking a quick peek at Telstra and you can get a 40GB a month plan for 55AUD (51 CAD) while Telus/Bell/Rogers charge $80 CAD for 30 GB. And I'm pretty sure the Australia price includes taxes in the price unlike the Canada price.

davidy123 5y ago
You're right about km vs mile, but it's consistently km in the comparisons so the same proportional result. The telcos don't need to provide coverage to every square meter, but they do have to reach many sparsely populated areas. The large carriers have it as a goal to cover areas like Northern Ontario better. I don't know what Australia's policies are, but they would have to be part of the comparison. The cost difference between Telstra and Telus/Bell/Rogers is double, but over a month tens of dollars is not a significant part of a budget, and when consuming video &c there's really not that much different between 30 - 40 GB (unlimited is another story). For people on a very limited budget, there are lower cost plans, but even with the Telstra plan it's not comparable to wired. Don't get me wrong, I think Canada, right or wrong, coddles these big carriers as a defence against international players, which creates an uneven playing field here (sharing infrastructure at competitive rates seemed like a fair recourse). I am just trying to bring more perspective to the table than "Ontario has a high density so should be cheap," besides the obvious "we are not just talking about Ontario or Toronto here." Wired is the real thing to discuss here, and what may get lost in the shuffle.

davidy123 5y ago

You're right about km vs mile, but it's consistently km in the comparisons so the same proportional result. The telcos don't need to provide coverage to every square meter, but they do have to reach many sparsely populated areas. The large carriers have it as a goal to cover areas like Northern Ontario better. I don't know what Australia's policies are, but they would have to be part of the comparison. The cost difference between Telstra and Telus/Bell/Rogers is double, but over a month tens of dollars is not a significant part of a budget, and when consuming video &c there's really not that much different between 30 - 40 GB (unlimited is another story). For people on a very limited budget, there are lower cost plans, but even with the Telstra plan it's not comparable to wired. Don't get me wrong, I think Canada, right or wrong, coddles these big carriers as a defence against international players, which creates an uneven playing field here (sharing infrastructure at competitive rates seemed like a fair recourse). I am just trying to bring more perspective to the table than "Ontario has a high density so should be cheap," besides the obvious "we are not just talking about Ontario or Toronto here." Wired is the real thing to discuss here, and what may get lost in the shuffle.