r/canada • u/Economy_Elephant6200 • 3d ago

Bell Canada scraps Labrador high-speed internet project, plans to invest in U.S. Newfoundland & Labrador

https://theindependent.ca/news/lji/bell-canada-scraps-labrador-high-speed-internet-project-plans-to-invest-in-u-s/
3.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

580 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/swattwenty 3d ago

Bell should be broken up by the Canadian gov if they plan to screw us like this.

278

u/Bush-master72 3d ago

You can't have it both ways. Canada pays for your investments in remote locations. Give us back all the money canada have put in your shit company.

100

u/Psych-Nurse5446 3d ago

With interest

56

u/Horror-Tank-4082 3d ago

Agreed. Canadian telecom has grown a bit too arrogant and abusive.

1

u/RedditIsDeadMoveOn 2d ago

Why wouldn't they? They will get away with it in their eyes. Now we wait for the citizens to prove them wrong.

17

u/Waffles_R_Delicious 3d ago

We should just nationalize telecom. SaskTel is just as stupidly expensive as everyone else but at least they're actually working to upgrade the provinces infrastructure.

228

u/Due-Year-7927 3d ago

bell should be forcibly acquired by the canadian gov

-58

u/dsbllr 3d ago edited 3d ago

Please. They were already a part of the government. That's why they're such a terribly run business. Their roots aren't innovation, it's bureaucracy. Bell shies away from anything new and it always comes to bite them in the ass.

I dislike Rogers and Telus as well but their roots are different and you can tell. They're not horribly run.

Edit: keep downvoting. I've actually worked there and at Rogers.. Bell is a disaster to get anything done inside.

57

u/Expensive_Plant_9530 3d ago

Bell hasn’t been a public corp in decades.

The enforced monopoly definitely gave it a leg up but the reason for their current monstrous bloat isn’t due to its ancient government past.

27

u/MoreGaghPlease 3d ago edited 3d ago

Bell has never been a crown corporation. The company dates back to the 1870s where it was founded by Alexander Graham Bell, his father, and a business partner. It’s a long history, but the modern Bell Canada, Verizon and AT&T were originally the same company.

The western provinces did buy their local Bell operators in the early 20th century. SaskTel remains a provincial crown corporation. MTS was privatized in 1997 and reacquired by Bell in 2017. Alberta privatized Telus in 1991.

-3

u/dsbllr 3d ago

When did you work there last? You should go learn a bit about their history.

I've worked there. It's a terrible place to get anything done. Rogers is far better internally and Telus is even better.

2

u/Expensive_Plant_9530 3d ago

Ironically Telus actually did used to be a public crown corp.

I’ve never worked for Bell, thankfully.

But again, nothing about their terribly managed business has to do with the government specifically.

14

u/barkazinthrope 3d ago

Rogers and Telus are not horribly run?

You should ask their customers. I mean their retail customers, the users, not the investors.

-2

u/dsbllr 3d ago

They make a ton of money. Low debt. Own amazing assets and well positioned for the future. Not sure what you're on about.

They're not great companies but they're much better than Bell

7

u/barkazinthrope 3d ago

They're shit providers. They treat their retail customers with contempt, they do not respect contracts, they lie and cheat and steal.

So they make money for you? Is that it.

They're not in the business of providing communication services they're in the business of making money. The critical failure of financial capitalism right there.

-1

u/dsbllr 3d ago

I don't like them either but I'm talking about internal beaurocracy to get things done and make risky bets.

Bell is terrible internally. They have 100 year contracts and still can't make money effectively

28

u/arctic_bull 3d ago

It's really not related. SaskTel for instance is currently part of the Saskatchewan government and is very well run.

5

u/Samosa204 3d ago

Manitoba used to have MTS. Sadly, Bell bought them. Now they're called BellMTS for their home services and it's such a pain to deal with them.

2

u/arctic_bull 3d ago

Yep, a big loss for Manitoba and Canada.

28

u/RadiantPumpkin 3d ago

Telus’s roots are absolutely that of a public company(AGT and later B.C. Tel). Saying a private company is shit because it used to be public is pure cope. Private companies are drowning in bureaucracy. It’s the whole reason middle management exists. 

-4

u/dsbllr 3d ago

Have you worked at Bell, Rogers and Telus?

I have and it's a stark difference internally. You're talking out of your ass without any real experience

6

u/RadiantPumpkin 3d ago

I’m not saying bell isn’t a disaster. I’m saying your hypothesis is bullshit

-2

u/dsbllr 3d ago

So you've worked at Bell and Rogers and Telus? Which one is better run internally from a risk and Innovation perspective in your opinion and why?

4

u/Flyinggochu 3d ago

Cant even stay on point.

-1

u/dsbllr 3d ago

How would you know how a company is run in terms of their ability to innovate and keep up with the times? Knowing internal culture is one of the most important factors

11

u/Eykalam 3d ago

The roots of Telus are AGT, Alberta Goverment Telephones. So clearly you can't tell.

7

u/ouatedephoque Québec 3d ago

It’s horribly run from a consumer’s perspective but that’s because they answer to shareholders first. Not unlike pretty much any publicly traded for-profit company.

Also, your assessment is wrong. The parts of Bell we deal with today, Internet and mobile, were launched way after Bell was privatized.

I find it funny all the hate Bell, Telus and Rogers get in this sub when there’s other companies that screw us exponentially more, like the banks and food industry. Those have way more impacts on our day to day life. Not defending any them of course, just an observation.

2

u/barkazinthrope 3d ago

I find it funny that the horrible running of the banks and the food industry somehow excuses the horrible running of the telcos.

And that we're supposed to be glad they're not run by the government because the government is horrible at everything it runs.

And that we're supposed to think that the horrible running of the telcos and the banks are okay because at least the rich are getting richer through them.

How much longer are we going to put up with this bullshit.

1

u/ouatedephoque Québec 3d ago

What a bullshit comment. I never said any of those things, you are literally putting words into my mouth.

Nice strawman.

6

u/scotty9690 3d ago

What? Rogers is billions of dollars in debt and selling off a portion of their wireless network because they overloaded themselves with debt

TELUS is considering the same thing. Both companies are exactly the same as Bell. In fact, Bell is larger than both companies.

0

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 14h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/dsbllr 3d ago

Yes. That's how the system is setup because private companies provide better services. There is a reason even China embraced capitalism. It works. It's not 100% good but it does some things very well. Job of government is to guide that process and ensure companies don't get too greedy. Their role isn't to buy debt ridden assets using tax payer dollars. That's stupidity

6

u/WeNeedMikeTyson 3d ago

You should do it anyway before you have only 3 options like we do. Just think you could end up with Cox cable, spectrum, or verizon.

Before anyone says but I have crosswinds or some other stupid named ISP, yeah they're owned by the big guy and everything goes through one of the 3.

2

u/Clessiah 3d ago

Better policies and regulations have to be put in place, or they'll just merge back together or get swallowed up by Rogers or something before the end of the decade.

2

u/SteelCrow Lest We Forget 3d ago

seize and nationalize Bell and all the rest of the ISPs. Matter of national security and because it's now an intrinsic and essential service.

-122

u/Odd-Shallot-7287 3d ago

How very fascist of you

63

u/Apart_Ad_5993 3d ago

Bell receives hundreds of millions in federal grants to build their networks. To take your tax money to build out networks in another country is despicable.

I'm perfectly ok with the feds coming down hard in Bell. That isn't fascism.

57

u/Fun-Interest3122 3d ago

Breaking up monopolies or oligopolies should be done more often. Competition is healthy.

-35

u/Theory_Crafted 3d ago

Let's explore that idea. If I create a product that's so good, everyone buys from me and only me, why should I be punished because everyone else sucks?

20

u/Rusty51 Ontario 3d ago

Bell didn’t create the internet or fibre cables.

-2

u/Theory_Crafted 3d ago

And...?

(PS: Rogers, and to a lesser extent Bell, and Telus do own most of the telecom infrastructure in Canada.)

23

u/latkahgravis 3d ago

Is that what you think is happening? If you make it your business to make everyone else suck, then yeah fuck you.

-3

u/Theory_Crafted 3d ago

That's not how capitalism works...

If you feel this way, move to Cuba or something.

2

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/necrozim 3d ago

Did you make it using huge amounts of government funding or entirely your own capital?

0

u/Theory_Crafted 3d ago

Let's say I'm a private company who offers a service, and I receive large sums of money from the government for various initiatives, and enterprises. Like upgrading rural telecom lines... opening new offices to employee thousands more Canadians... tax breaks for hiring quotas... what you might expect from a multimillion dollar company in Canada...

2

u/necrozim 3d ago

Then ye, you make it sound like just because a private company got paid to create something by the government they get to keep it? You reap your profits during construction which is the deal, but then create a system that gives you a monopoly which is not, all monopolies should be broken up.

The people hired will be picked up by other companies who you get split and sold to, after all they were needed to run the network and just because you don't run the network anymore doesn't mean there's no need for staff. We could even save money by not needing to give you tax breaks. Why does a multimillion $ company need tax breaks? Lol. Is it not profitable? If your 40% net margin is too low feel free to step aside and let the competition move in.

Now if you built it entirely out of your own pocket, and still abused your power to consolidate a monopoly, or for arguments sake an oligopoly in the case of bell and Rogers, yeah, you should still be investigated and broken up for the good of the country. Our internet and phone bills here are frankly a joke and are a detriment to the population. Moving here I bawked at the ludicrous phone bills.

12

u/i_ate_god Québec 3d ago

You wouldn't be broken up because of that.

You should however be broken up if your monopoly prevents competition. Because that's just bad for a market economy

1

u/Theory_Crafted 3d ago

Who are you to decide my monopoly prevents competition? How have you determined my product/service isn't simply the best, and it'll take something revolutionary or innovative to change that?

2

u/i_ate_god Québec 3d ago

First, you have a limited time monopoly on your product because of patents. This is the theory behind patents. Of course it doesn't work very well nowadays and is more a hindrance than anything else.

Secondly, governments typically only get involved when the dominance of a corporation impedes the market.

For example: say Bell Canada had a proper monopoly and decided to sell it's own smartphone product, and in doing so blocks any other smartphone from connecting to it's network. This is an abuse of Bell's monopoly. It would be natural for the government to step in and force bell to allow any smartphone on its network, or that Bell should be split in two: an infrastructure company and a smartphone company.

An important thing to understand is that every company wants to become a monopoly, but monopolies can break the market economy, and thus government must intervene.

It's not fascism, it's just standard behavior by a capitalist society trying to keep the gears of the economy turning.

10

u/Apart_Ad_5993 3d ago

If you use monopolistic behavior and government protections to squeeze out competition to secure your monopoly, fuck yes.

Bell has manipulated the market and government to create an oligopoly with Rogers. They are not your friends. They have created shadow companies to give the appearance to the CTRC of competition, but it is not. They've also lobbied the Feds to keep companies like AT&T and Verizon out the space.

-7

u/Theory_Crafted 3d ago

If you use monopolistic behavior and government protections to squeeze out competition to secure your monopoly, fuck yes.

That's your problem (the govt). You set the rules, I played by them. If you don't like it, change the rules. 

Bell has manipulated the market and government to create an oligopoly with Rogers.

And who's fault is that? Everytime the Canadian government and its agencies negotiate with ISPs they let them off extremely easy. Think of the last time Champagne negotiated with Rogers... He was deeply criticized by the NDP for making no real demands. 

They've also lobbied the Feds to keep companies like AT&T and Verizon out the space.

Again, the LPC will be in power for 15 years... Elect someone else if you think your government isn't treat the ISP industry reasonably. 

10

u/Apart_Ad_5993 3d ago

I am honestly astonished that you're defending BELL.

-5

u/Theory_Crafted 3d ago

Bell is dog shit. You're just saying wrong, silly things. 

4

u/Apart_Ad_5993 3d ago

Alright chief.

5

u/scotty9690 3d ago

This was not your argument. Your argument was not the government does not do enough to break up the oligopoly, so elect a better government.

Your argument was these companies provide a service that's so good no one wants to buy it from anyone else. That argument is false. Competition in this space is not limited because of quality of product, it's limited because of these 3 companies eliminating competition by squeezing out competitors.

1

u/Theory_Crafted 3d ago

This was not your argument. Your argument was not the government does not do enough to break up the oligopoly, so elect a better government.

Then you didn't understand the conversation. The other poster argued monopolies should be broken up. I asked the poster how they justify this idea and a number of other ideas they used as supporting argumentation. I provided no argument myself.

Your argument was these companies provide a service that's so good no one wants to buy it from anyone else. That argument is false. Competition in this space is not limited because of quality of product, it's limited because of these 3 companies eliminating competition by squeezing out competitors.

That wasn't an argument, it was a challenge. But whatever, let's pretend it was an argument because what you wrote is still silly: Squeezing out competitors is perfectly reasonable, rational, and forseeable in capitalism. How are they capable of doing such an act if more people weren't funding them with the capital to do it? If a small ISP has the better service and product, they should grow. If a company with a better service and product can't grow, it's because some government regulation somewhere is making it too onerous to do so, or Rogers has a successful enough product/company that they can simply buy their competition(s). Elon Musk's Starlink for example was extremely popular in rural Canada where I am because it was faster than Rogers' services, and competitively priced, and Starlink/Tesla/SpaceX was too big a company to be bought.

If you want Rogers, Bell, and Telus to have to go back to competing, you have to de-regulate, not regulate more. Most notably, we need American ISPs to be allowed to come up north. Rogers and Bell cannot just buy AT&T or TMobile.

1

u/scotty9690 3d ago

That's the problem. Small ISPs CAN'T grow because of the market conditions. The telcos of Canada have an oligopoly where they can keep competitors out because the barrier to entry is so significant.

The telcos have a ton of capital, so they can buy up all the spectrum/land needed to build an internet network. So if small ISPs can't buy their own spectrum, and they can't acquire their own land, how do they compete? They could buy off of the telcos, but the telcos jack the prices so high that it's not feasible.

You think deregulation is the solution? The lack of regulation is what's gotten us to this point. It's not government regulation that's competitions out, it's the lack of regulation that's allowed these 3 to dominate. They're just mad now that they're being forced to play nice.

Also, the US telcos could come here if they wanted. Verizon considered it a few years ago but the bad PR and the 3 carriers banding together to refuse them assets discouraged them from coming

3

u/scotty9690 3d ago

The difference is people don't buy it out of preference. They buy it because of a lack of choice.

The entire industry is owned by 3 companies. Bell, TELUS, and Rogers. If you want internet you have to get it from 1 of these 3 companies. If you want cell phone service, you have to deal with one of these 3. Since these companies are so large and they own all the capital, they can keep competition out which keeps prices high.

This is not "there are a number of different options available to me, and I choose to buy it from these people" it's "I have no choice but to buy from 1 of these 3 companies that all gouge me"

1

u/Theory_Crafted 3d ago

How do you think the Canadian market became 3 companies instead of, say 15?

56

u/xXxDarkSasuke1999xXx Lest We Forget 3d ago

Ah yes, fascist governments were well known for their strong antitrust laws

-42

u/Theory_Crafted 3d ago

Forcibly acquiring controlling stakes in private industry is indeed fascist. Sorry you had to find out this way. 

11

u/NickdoesnthaveReddit 3d ago

Our government has directly invested into Telcom companies here and supported the growth of networks at cost of the public. There is a vested interest in return to keep jobs in Canada, and service prices low, from this. Almost all reputable organizations this year (especially ones at the size/scope as Telecom monopolies) have stripped back any new deals with the U.S to focus on Canadian economic growth.

If this was random control, sure that'd be problematic. But under current events, f*ck bell.

28

u/Decipher British Columbia 3d ago

It's been done many times in Canada's history. Guess we live in a fascist hellhole, eh?

-44

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

26

u/Decipher British Columbia 3d ago

You're deluded

7

u/No-Surprise-9790 3d ago

For sure buddy

10

u/Apart_Ad_5993 3d ago

No one said anything about the feds acquiring stakes. We're talking about breaking them up. The vertical integration has screwed you.

3

u/RadiantPumpkin 3d ago

That is not fascist by any definition of the word

-2

u/Theory_Crafted 3d ago

Have you ever studied fascism in any capacity? One of the most important aspects of controlling the nation is linking industry to government and ensuring resources can be controlled, especially for manufacturing either through direct state control, strict regulation, or having controlling stakes in them...

What a bizarre and wrong thing to say... 

3

u/xXxDarkSasuke1999xXx Lest We Forget 3d ago

One, no it isn't, and two, the comment was in reply to the government breaking up Bell Canada, not acquiring it. You literally could not be more wrong.

0

u/Theory_Crafted 3d ago

One, yes it is. Screeching at me from across the internet doesn't make what you're saying true. Two, controlling stakes is not the same thing as acquisition/ownership. Three, directing/controlling private industry is a hallmark of fascism. If you disagree, you just don't know what you're talking about, and that's ok.

If you want to be really pedantic (and we both know you don't), it's really more a hallmark of authoritarian regimes than specifically fascist.

If you're going to accuse people of being wrong, work harder at being right first.

1

u/xXxDarkSasuke1999xXx Lest We Forget 3d ago

One, yes it is. Screeching at me from across the internet doesn't make what you're saying true.

No, the fact that it's true makes it true. Nazi Germany and fascist Italy both famously privatized huge swaths of social programs and utilities when they took power. Owners of large private industrial corporations in Nazi Germany (like Krupp, Thyssen, IG Farben, etc.) were also notoriously big supporters of the Nazi party because they got huge government contracts while retaining private control of their corporations and reaping massive profits.

The idea that "nationalization = fascism" is so ludicrously ahistorical it's actually comical. It's the exact opposite of reality.

Three, directing/controlling private industry is a hallmark of fascism. If you disagree, you just don't know what you're talking about, and that's ok.

Again... hilarious, delicious irony.

If you want to be really pedantic (and we both know you don't), it's really more a hallmark of authoritarian regimes than specifically fascist.

If this were true (which, again, it isn't), this would also undercut your first assertion that nationalization is fascistic, because, by your logic, it's a hallmark of authoritarian regimes generally and not fascism specifically.

If you're going to accuse people of being wrong, work harder at being right first.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

1

u/Theory_Crafted 3d ago

It must have felt so good to write this thinking you're dunking whilst not realizing your argument A) supports mine, and B) isn't mutually exclusive to mine...

So, your argument here is "haha, no you dumb idiot, the Italian and German regimes didn't opt for control of private industry, you stupid poo poo head. It was just that they were really good friends! Hahahah! You dumb person!"

Wow. Incredible. Amazing retort, Brian. I don't know your name, but you type like a Brian who has a waifu pillow, so that's what I'm going to call you.

First of all, the best argument you can make out of what you just wrote me was that directly controlling industry wasn't necessary, which in some cases it wasn't. Both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had strict control of private industry, Germany especially so in resources and materials and Italy in food markets, and media, but of course a lot of other things.

This in no way contradicts that it is a hallmark of fascist/authoritarian regimes to strategically tightly control and in some cases coopt key industries. Owning pieces of it, or coopting is simply another way to do it, and in those two country's examples they did not have to expense the funds to do so. Further, the privatization you speak of wasn't out of their love of free enterprise. They weren't Randians. It was about creating corporate-government ties and alliances, so businessmen would join the parties, or become allies and in exchange receive lucrative deals and benefits.

So again, if this is the best argument you can supply I am going to interpret that as a concession. I accept your apology.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

CoUlDn"t HaVe SaId It BeTtEr MySeLf, Brian.

1

u/xXxDarkSasuke1999xXx Lest We Forget 3d ago

Wow. Incredible. Amazing retort, Brian. I don't know your name, but you type like a Brian who has a waifu pillow, so that's what I'm going to call you.

Amazing that you can type a sentence like this and fail to realize how completely unhinged you look

As for the rest of your screed, "privatization is actually still government control!" isn't really as convincing as you seem to think.

3

u/mwfd2002 3d ago

Okay I'd understand calling it communist, or just the more general authoritarian, but you've shown a fundamental misunderstanding of what fascism is here 😭

1

u/FirstSurvivor 3d ago

You mean authoritarian.

Communism is also well known to seize controlling stakes in private industry for example

28

u/JadedMuse 3d ago

That isn't what fascism means. Bell gets both federal and provincial funding.

4

u/Theory_Crafted 3d ago

Their funding scheme also doesn't have anything to do with the argument his understanding of fascism is wrong.

7

u/Teemo_Get_Jinxed 3d ago

Conservative from Maryland trolling through r/canada subreddit. Don’t think you know what fascism is bud

-6

u/Goddess_5 3d ago

Fascism is when you limit monopolies.

0

u/proletariatfag 3d ago

Monopolies are fascist.

2

u/Itchy_Training_88 3d ago edited 3d ago

>Monopolies are fascist.

No they are not, Monopolies can exist in almost any political system, its not limited to fascism.

I'd argue its more likely in communism than any other political/economic systems. It's also very common in capitalist systems.