Sent my letter today (merger)

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

There was an initial decision handed down last week on Microcell acquisition
by Rogers. Basically, they had no particular issue, but that the renegade
from the industry would no longer be in place.

<1@2.com> wrote in message news:arded.1654307$yk.273759@news.easynews.com...
> OK, so I wrote a short letter to the Minister today.
> First time ever. Basically, I just told him that removing
> Microcell would be bad for competition in the cellular market
> in Canada. (this seems pretty plain considering the
> pricing structure of the other major players)
>
> Let's see if it does any good.
>
>
> Minister of Industry
> The Honourable David Emerson
> C.D. Howe Building
> 5th Floor, West Tower
> 235 Queen Street
> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H5

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

>> There was an initial decision handed down last week on Microcell
>>acquisition by Rogers. Basically, they had no particular issue, but
>>that the renegade from the industry would no longer be in place.
>
> "initial" decision? Does that mean there is still
> a chance to make a difference? I bet that if enough
> people write in, the minister will at least give
> our opinion some thought.

$1.5B to 1 (effectively)

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

I thought Bell is the monopoly, now Roger's is?


"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:4179B9CE.BB0C68F9@teksavvy.com...
> One more thing to consider:
>
> Since we have a minority government, it would perhaps also help to send
> the
> letters to both the leaders of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. The Block
> Québécois is based in Québec and may find reason to protect Microcell, a
> Québec company with Québec jobs. The NDP, might support preventing the big
> bad
> corporate giant (Rogers) from getting a bigger monopoly.
>
> The Reform party probably prefers to protect Telus (a western company) and
> Telus stands to gain from Microcell's demise.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

>> I thought Bell is the monopoly, now Roger's is?
>
> How can Bell or Rogers be a monopoly when there are other competitors??

Isn't it more like an oligopolistic industry then?

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

Exactly. Everybody keeps calling Bell a monopoly, and now somehow Rogers is
being called a monopoly. I guess I'm just tired of hearing about all these
"monopolies" which are in direct competition with each other.

G M
"Mason Storm" <mydogfacenippy@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns958C6C4138mysnippynippyshawca@24.71.223.159...
> "G M" <greggm@sympatico.ca> wrote in alt.cellular.fido:
>
>> I thought Bell is the monopoly, now Roger's is?
>
> How can Bell or Rogers be a monopoly when there are other competitors??
>
> --
> Mason Storm
>
> -----------------------------
> Remove "dogface" to reply privately in email.
> -----------------------------
> http://ciudad.latinol.com//boinks/booters.html
> -----------------------------

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

<malingerer@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<3Wded.490$%k.445@pd7tw2no>...
> There was an initial decision handed down last week on Microcell acquisition
> by Rogers. Basically, they had no particular issue, but that the renegade
> from the industry would no longer be in place.

Is that decision available on the web? I searched on the Competition
Bureau's website but did not find anything.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:28:16 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:

>Monopoly is far more than just some official title. It is also a mentality.
>There may be 6 big national banks, but they are a monopoly because they work
>together and their product offerings are all essentially the same. There is no
>competition to lower bank fees, there is collusion to increase them.

You have chosen to make your own definition of what a monopoly is.
The dictionary definition:

Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a
commodity or service

Rogers does not qualify under the traditional definition of a
monopoly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

G M wrote:

> Exactly. Everybody keeps calling Bell a monopoly, and now somehow Rogers is
> being called a monopoly. I guess I'm just tired of hearing about all these
> "monopolies" which are in direct competition with each other.
>
> G M

They are oligopolies.












> "Mason Storm" <mydogfacenippy@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xns958C6C4138mysnippynippyshawca@24.71.223.159...
>
>>"G M" <greggm@sympatico.ca> wrote in alt.cellular.fido:
>>
>>
>>>I thought Bell is the monopoly, now Roger's is?
>>
>>How can Bell or Rogers be a monopoly when there are other competitors??
>>
>>--
>>Mason Storm
>>
>>-----------------------------
>>Remove "dogface" to reply privately in email.
>>-----------------------------
>>http://ciudad.latinol.com//boinks/booters.html
>>-----------------------------
>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 01:04:22 -0500, Michael Moore wrote:

> Joseph wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 06:03:58 GMT, Mason Storm <mydogfacenippy@shaw.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"G M" <greggm@sympatico.ca> wrote in alt.cellular.fido:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I thought Bell is the monopoly, now Roger's is?
>>>
>>>How can Bell or Rogers be a monopoly when there are other competitors??
>>
>>
>> Rogers has never been a monopoly.
>
> That's funny. I cannot get cable tv from anyone except Rogers.

Umm, but cable isn't the only way to get TV. There are two satellite
options open, plus rabbit ears. I don't see how you can possibly call it a
monopoly. Yes, they are the only ones offering one TYPE of TV, but that
doesn't make them a monopoly.

It's like saying GM is a monopoly in sports cars since they are the only
ones that sell Corvettes.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

How is $25/mth not a basic service? ExpressVu's minimum costs less than my
local cable company's minimum, and has twice the channels.

Wow, a lot of discussion starts from one sarcastic comment about the word
"monopoly".

G M

"Michael Moore" <m.moore@NOSPAMutoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:WIjjd.32770$OD3.1686721@news20.bellglobal.com...
> repatch wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 01:04:22 -0500, Michael Moore wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Joseph wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 06:03:58 GMT, Mason Storm <mydogfacenippy@shaw.ca>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"G M" <greggm@sympatico.ca> wrote in alt.cellular.fido:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I thought Bell is the monopoly, now Roger's is?
>>>>>
>>>>>How can Bell or Rogers be a monopoly when there are other competitors??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Rogers has never been a monopoly.
>>>
>>>That's funny. I cannot get cable tv from anyone except Rogers.
>>
>>
>> Umm, but cable isn't the only way to get TV. There are two satellite
>> options open, plus rabbit ears. I don't see how you can possibly call it
>> a
>> monopoly. Yes, they are the only ones offering one TYPE of TV, but that
>> doesn't make them a monopoly.
>
>
> Satellite is not comparable -- they do not offer a "basic" service as the
> cable companies are required to offer. Surely you jest about rabbit ears?
>
>