Rogers potential takeover of Shaw

Interesting perspective here from a lawyer. In this article it even mentions Rogers has had talks with the Aquilini family who owns the Canucks, I suppose to garner support to help in the merger, not sure.

"“It’s a bit harsh to say it’s the bureau’s fault that there is no strong fourth carrier,” he says. “The real question is whether or government policy on this carrier policy still makes sense?” He notes that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has been putting pressure on the big three to lower prices through different means, such as basic plans" ...

2 Likes

Rogers. I still remember when they bought McLean Hunter. I worked for one of their subsidiaries at the time.
I watched the CRTC hearing where Rogers told them "we won't break up the company" when in fact they had already sold 80% of the assets.

Now they want to buy Shaw because Shaw is selling cut price mobile packages.....

3 Likes

Different country but from our American experience, no way were the following media mergers a good idea in the public interest but most politicians carry rubber stamps to those meetings:

1-2)
NBC-Universal after Comcast-NBC - this allowed much of a cable system to both raise rates easily and cut out content or upcharge for it. That was in the midst of a recession too mind you. Philadelphia was its hometown before the Universal merger afterwards. Then when NBC-Universal came around they only tightened those screws before they tried to shift paying cable subscribers onto Peacock and loading NBCSN with car auctions and other filler crap for 18 months before pulling that plug.

  1. Facebook-Instagram - this allowed them to corner a large share of the online advertising and content market

  2. Amazon - Washington Post Companies

  3. Google - Many

It's as if 25 years after the Microsoft anti-trust ligitation nothing has been learned, but hey when enough palms are greased much is always forgotten too.

1 Like

"4th carrier" has to be simply the dumbest most laughable comment anyone has made of all time
It just shows how little they understand the industry

If the US can not support 4 viable carriers how exactly does anyone imagine Canada can?

2 Likes

There is now a flip-side though via residential broadband WiFi, which the major cellular firms have entered with unlimited plans now versus only cable and telco before or commercial plans.

There are more than the mobile phone providers who are offering such service now as cable and mobile compete for the space.

XFinity is not the only "cable firm" (a unit of cable firm Comcast and NBC Universal) that has also entered the mobile space like Shaw as noted above.

The competition is no longer as much merely for the TV screen or the cell phone but for the streams to all screens, and so there is room for more firms on that front.

Oh we have unlimited wifi through cell access points too
In some rural areas it is the only way people can get data and is HEAVILY subsidized through our government (who pays like 80% of their monthly bills as "right to internet" is protected under our laws)

My rant was specifically against the "new entrants" trio a few years back
Our government gave away millions (billions?) in potential revenue as a way to encourage foreign investment

The plan failed miserably and cost us (taxpayers) an utter fortune
2 of the 3 brands were useless and never came close to profit (Public bought low cost G band which was useless since no modern phones could support it, Mobilicity tried to keep costs low, but were owned by an investment group who cared more about stock prices than their customers. Both brands sold out to the big3 as soon as opportunity presented itself).

Wind/Freedom tried running a European model but again crushed with no chance. In beginning they were cannabalized by Mobilicity in particular and regional carriers (Videotron, TBTel, SaskTel etc) which left them a small fragmented network. Why try to save $10 a month off your cell phone bill if coverage rots and barely works anywhere?
They lost billions, way more than other 2 carriers and investor after investor suffered stock drops and bailed out. Shaw bought them and although the early adopter feared "another" Rogers at least some stability and roaming was finally available to them. Problem was costs for them had risen to (in many cases) be higher than incumbents prices by this point without any premium service or bundling options. Now vultures are fighting over their carcass.

1 Like

The deal is probably a huge negative for the CFL if Rogers replaces Shaw out west .

Shaw was a great sponsor and supporter of the CFL .

Rogers dislikes anything CFL related and will only cement more Jays only in the summer for Canadian sports entertainment .

2 Likes

Although I don't know if Sportsnet would want to sell some games back to TSN for some Blue Jays games. Along these lines, I was searching and found this on Wiki of past interest:

" Sportsnet formerly also aired ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball , but sub-licensed the games to TSN in exchange for its previous package of Blue Jays games."

It would be best for the CFL if the Jays were not tangled up with such a large media holder with so much at stake at Rogers and the CFL had more than one platform than TSN .

1 Like

Sure but Rogers isn't doing anything illegal with owning the Blue Jays and putting so much emphasis on marketing them I would think. The Blue Jays are just aired by Sportsnet as the CFL is just aired by TSN. But personally, yes, it would be best if both the Blue Jays and CFL had games on both networks and/or other networks, for a few reasons.

Not illegal at all but Rogers is selling the Jays as Can -con thru their media with CRTC regulations without the ratio.

Not an even playing field .

2 Likes