Re: Number Portability

On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 10:09:58PM -0600, Howard R. Hamilton wrote:
> Time to wade in again, with my two cents.
>
> Dylan Griffiths wrote:
>
> >Keith Snape wrote:
> >
> >>In my personal opinion, Sasktel is just a company. Just like every
> >>other telco in Canada.
> >
> >No. Saskatchewan is special (see later).
>
> SaskTel is a government backed monopoly. Major policy directives come
> from the government. The government also creates regulations that favor
> SaskTel in Saskatchewan.
>
> >>They want to gain more customers, and they want to retain the
> >>customers they have. And just like everyone other 'kind benevolent'
> >>telco in Canada, they want to make money selling their services.
> >
> >Yes. They do want to make money.
>
> SaskTel is a cash cow for the government. Most of its profits go into
> the general revenue fund of the government.

This is a really important point.

First, the fact that it is a cash cow (2nd only to oil/gas royalties) would
normally spawn competition in a fair marketplace. If the marketplace were
open, competitors like Bell would be lining up to go after the business
customers like other provinces that have competition.

Second, SaskTel likes to cry poverty when it comes to rural service and that
they need the monopoly and revenues from urban customers to subsidize rural.
This is the main reason the CRTC has given SaskTel special treatment in the
past. As Howard point pointed out, SaskTel is not using their profits to
build out the network to provide cutting edge services to the have-not rural
customers. In fact, on the Mobility side, there were a few parts of the
province that lost wireless coverage when SaskTel eliminated radio phone
service a few years ago. What will happen when SaskTel decides they no
longer want to support POTS, will there be a bunch or rural subscribers on
loops too long for DSL that won't be able to get reliable phone service
without substantial cost (trence fibre and pay for switchgear)? The old
argument of subsidizing rural customer with revenue from urban customers is
no longer true.

> SaskTel has tried to go into a lot of different markets, usually by
> buying up a small player in that market and then pumping some money into
> it. So far, the only case where they didn't get their butts booted hard
> was Navigata in BC. SaskTel does not know how to market where they are
> not backed by the government with a legislated monopoly. If they don't
> get their act together, and learn a little about market forces in the
> real world, they are going to lose their spot in the Saskatchewan market
> too.

Well, if the media reports are to be belived, Navigata is a money pit. I
strongly believe the primary purpose of Navigata is to own something close
to the major POPs (ie Vancouver/Seattle) so they don't have to pay Bell for
Internet access. I'm sure Bell returns the favour when it comes to a
price for non-tariff Internet service and charges a fortune.

For a competitive carrier, there are 3 options in decreasing cost: build new
outside plant, lease from SaskTel or Shaw or go VoIP. The last option costs
virtually nothing for infrastructure. The only logical reason why we don't
have competitive local carriers is that potential competitors can't get 306
numbers or at least not at a price were they can compete with SaskTel. The
tariff rates are written in such a way such that leasing the raw
infrastructre is more expensive that the consumer price for service and
access.

I can't wait for number portability on cell phones. I'm not pleased with
the rates I pay with Rogers. Number portability will allow me to easily
migrate to another carrier if Rogers doesn't become a little more competive
for their locked in customers like me. Perhaps I'll switch to SaskTel,
perhaps not but I feel as a consumer I should have the choice. I applaud
the CRTC finally forcing telcos to deal with number portability.
Received on Sun Dec 10 01:34:51 2006