“Big telecom is already big. Canadians already have too few choices. We simply can’t afford a massive step backward,” Laura Tribe, executive director of advocacy group OpenMedia, said at the House industry committee studying the deal.
“History shows that when you have four operators you’ll be able to enjoy more competition, and therefore that will be shown in prices and different offers,” he said. “To answer your question, I would say, if we were interested in 2008, we certainly are the candidate with the financial means, experience as well as expertise, when it comes to both telecom and commercialization, that would enable us to meet the necessary criteria to be successful,” Péladeau said in French.
As the fourth competitor, Freedom Mobile has been widely credited for bringing down prices in those provinces in which it operates. As a condition of the deal, Rogers has promised to freeze rates for Freedom Mobile customers for three years.Article content “Canadians already have too few choices. We simply can’t afford a massive step backward,” Laura Tribe of OpenMedia told the House industry committee.The parallel of the sale of Manitoba’s MTS to Bell in 2016 came up several times at the committee. As part of that deal, MTS’s wireless business was spun off to Xplornet, which provides telecom service in rural areas and didn’t previously have a wireless division.
One of the benefits of the merger that Rogers and Shaw have been touting is that it will enable them to more efficiently roll out 5G, including to rural and remote areas. The company has committed to spending an additional $1 billion on rural connectivity if the merger is approved.