cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (02/18/91)
Unitel, a firm composed of companies led by Canadian cable-TV mogul Ted Rogers and Canadian Pacific Corporation, is making a bid to provide alternative long-distance telephone service in Canada. The issue is highly controversial; this bid is only the last of several that have been turned aside by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) at the behest of populist political movements in Canada. In the wake of the economic disaster precipitated by the Free Trade Act (many Canadian firms busted and tens of thousands of jobs lost), this move, sanctioned by the extremely unpopular federal government, is seen as yet another test of Canadian collectivity. Unlike the U.S., where telephone companies and regulators conspired to hide the costs of deregulation - particularly higher local telephone costs - in devices like access charges, in Canada the proponents of deregulation and privatization have been very forward in predicting a "rebalancing" of rates that will favor long-distance and especially international - hence border-crossing - phone calls over local calls. Rebalancing, in many Canadians' eyes, is the imposition of a rate structure that further enhances cross-border integration of the Canadian economy with that of the U.S., to the detriment of the local economy. The Telecommunications Workers Union in British Columbia has put together a well-done packet of materials on this topic. The TWU opposes Unitel's petition. For more information from the TWU, contact: Mr. Sid Shniad Staff Economist, Telecommunications Workers Union 5261 Lane Street, Burnaby, B.C. V5H 4A6 CANADA (604) 437-4822 I believe that Sid can also be reached at Sid_Shniad@cs.sfu.ca Bob Jacobson
tony@oha.UUCP (Tony Olekshy) (02/21/91)
In message <telecom11.127.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, cyberoid@milton.u.
washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes:
[About Unitel, Canada, Telecom, and so-called `Economics', from Mr.
Sid Shniad, Staff Economist, British Columbia Telecommunications
Workers Union]
In case anyone didn't catch this, suffice to say that Mr. Shniad may
not be in a position to be unbiased in his account. There are many
Canadians who:
- Are looking forward to telecom competition, not only in long lines, but
also in subscriber loops, via all that cable TV coax.
- Are participating in Canada's own discussion of such topics as 970-type
numbers, caller identification, COCOTs, and slamming.
- Remain in favour of the free trade agreement, having benifited from it
or otherwise not having seen overriding negatives (often these folks are
not previously protected union workers).
- Think that imported labour union bureaucrats remain a major problem
in Canada, and that unions in British Columbia are the worst of the lot.
I know that other Digest subscribers are keeping The Rest Of The World
up to date on many of the details of the points that I have
summarized, and that this is off topic for this Digest, but unless you
publish some other rebuttal, I would hope that the opinions in the
referenced posting would at least recieve some balance.
Yours etc.,
Tony Olekshy. Internet: tony%oha@CS.UAlberta.CA
BITNET: tony%oha.uucp@UALTAMTS.BITNET uucp: alberta!oha!tonyror@grassys.bc.ca (Richard O'Rourke) (02/23/91)
There are some companies with good intentions in the Canadian LD market. There are some that are ... not so desireable. I know, I have seen the worst. The changes pending in Canada are very different than what happened years ago in the US. On the one hand, the CRTC thinks they are avoiding many nasties, having learned from the experience of Mr. G. On the other hand, Canada is not, never has, and never will be America (no offense meant). I hope that the CRTC does the Right Thing, and is Very Careful about how they dole out the tickets to sell bandwidth. There is a potential for Canada to be (or remain, check out our cable TV network!) a country with a very impressive telecommunications system. Conversely, there is a likelyhood that we will just follow a well beaten path (again, no offense intended).