But while competition is important, the hyperfocus by both the government and the media on the proposed Rogers-Shaw merger was always misplaced. The sad fact is that, barring other changes, Canada would have continued to suffer from a lack of telecom competition regardless of whether Rogers and Shaw merged.
But all hope is not lost. There’s a simpler way to inject real competitiveness into the telecom sector: Relax the remaining restrictions on foreign investment.Article contentThis might sound off the mark in a time of rising protectionist sentiment, when even right-leaning politicians are less vocal about the benefits of trade, and industrial policy has seen a renaissance of sorts.
Most of the objections to foreign ownership boil down to thinly veiled protectionism, often from the very telecom giants who would prefer not to see their cozy oligopoly gatecrashed by more formidable foreign competitors. There are certainly legitimate national security reasons to worry about infrastructure , but protecting ourselves from the corporate proxies of menacing foreign states does not require banning majority ownership by legitimate companies in countries with whom we have strong and reliable trading relationships.Article content
If you allow a giant like AT&T or Verizon into Canada, they will swallow the 'big 3'. Now you have a foreign 'big 2' and a loss of Canadian jobs and tax base. How dumb would that be? A foreign entity will then control national data and telecom.Does anyone care about sovereignty ?
This message brought to you by the foreign telecoms that propped up Rogers, Telus, and Bell
You know you won't get more foreign competition while the big three make huge political donations
And dump the Liberals
When Ted Rogers went to the board of Rogers and asked for the money to create Rogers Wireless he was rejected so using the foreign ownership rules and some heavy debt he started RW in partnership with AT&T and British Telecom. Lower the rules so others can do the same.
No brainer. Same for airlines