Industry committee I can be very brief. The problem is around what deregulation means. As we read what's coming out of the minister's office, deregulation means the elimination of wholesale tariffs to competitors. That's why I'm ripping up my flyer. I can't offer high-speed Internet service as a
February 21st, 2007Committee meeting
Mel Cohen
Industry committee The message is simply one of competition first, deregulation next. That's what we need. Why deregulate before you have competition? There's no benefit to consumers.
February 21st, 2007Committee meeting
Mel Cohen
Industry committee In our case, our model is more based on resale. We're not a cable company. We're doing it using the telephone company's infrastructure. But without the wholesale tariffs, as they're called, we just don't have an offer to the public. We don't have a way to reach them.
February 21st, 2007Committee meeting
Mel Cohen
Industry committee Mr. Shipley, I'm not sure about these references to there never being an occurrence to enforce any anti-competition laws in other countries, but there's a suggestion that our telephone companies will not behave in anti-competitive ways because, somehow or other, either they're go
February 21st, 2007Committee meeting
Mel Cohen
Industry committee I can't answer whether $15 million would be too much for the incumbents to pay to see a couple of competitors leave the market.
February 21st, 2007Committee meeting
Mel Cohen
Industry committee First, keep our wholesale tariffs available to us. They've hinted that they're going to take those away. Second, keep restrictions on win-backs until the market power of the former monopolies has been diminished sufficiently that they don't have this exclusive access to our clie
February 21st, 2007Committee meeting
Mel Cohen
Industry committee Mr. Van Kesteren, if we are talking about win-back, the distinction is that this is not something that happens before the sale. I agree with you 100%. The consumer can go from supplier to supplier to supplier, solicit the best deal, and then make his choice. But what we're faci
February 21st, 2007Committee meeting
Mel Cohen
Industry committee Anything is possible. If you're referring to the three and three, I don't think we need to have a third player. I think we just need to have a wireless company as the third player, but certainly it could happen. It won't be Distributel, I can assure you of that.
February 21st, 2007Committee meeting
Mel Cohen
Industry committee Honestly, I think the CRTC was doing a fine job. They've demonstrated to us in the past that they know how to introduce competition into a market. They don't deregulate before the competition is established. I think that's the kind of thing we need in the future.
February 21st, 2007Committee meeting
Mel Cohen
Industry committee I would say that for giants like Bell and Telus, a penalty of $15 million is only the cost of doing business.
February 21st, 2007Committee meeting
Mel Cohen
Industry committee No. I think Mr. Bernier characterized win-back restrictions as denying consumers access to rivalrous behaviour. It is no doubt what he learned from the incumbent telephone companies, but they're misleading. They make you focus on the small part of the market that has already take
February 21st, 2007Committee meeting
Mel Cohen
Industry committee I don't think it will happen like that because they're up now against some very big giants. Rogers also is no small player. Vidéotron is no small player. But taking away the restrictions on win-back certainly does retard the growth of competition, especially by smaller competitor
February 21st, 2007Committee meeting
Mel Cohen
Industry committee Reliance on market forces is clearly more desirable than complex overregulation, but for market forces to be effective, we need rivalrous behaviour that's real. This does not mean duopolies. It means a diversity of service providers, as we see in the long-distance market. Deregu
February 21st, 2007Committee meeting
Mel Cohen