The Irony of Bell's Plea: A Closer Look at the Canadian Telecom Monopoly

In a recent statement, Bell's CEO, Mirko Bibic, called on the government to reduce its regulation and "micromanagement" of the telecom industry. Bibic argues that these interventions could lead to decreased investments and services for underserved communities. However, this plea for less regulation comes with a significant dose of irony.

The Canadian telecom industry, dominated by the 'big four' - Bell, Québecor, Rogers, and Telus - is often criticized for its lack of competition. The government's network sharing requirements, which Bibic takes issue with, are designed to level the playing field by allowing smaller companies to license network use from incumbents. This regulation is a step towards creating a more competitive market, not stifling it.

Bibic's argument that such regulation doesn't strengthen the quality or resiliency of networks seems to miss the point. The goal of these regulations is not necessarily to improve network quality, but to ensure fair competition and access to services for all Canadians.

Furthermore, it's hard to ignore the contradiction in Bell's stance. While Bibic criticizes the government's intervention in the industry, Bell and Telus recently asked the government to intervene to ensure providers from other companies could also access the TTC’s wireless network after Rogers acquired the rights.

This contradiction highlights a critical issue: major telecoms like Bell seem to want the benefits of a free market without the challenges. They are quick to call for regulation when it suits their interests, yet decry government intervention when it benefits smaller competitors.

Moreover, the high cost of telecom services in Canada is a well-known issue. Canadians pay some of the highest prices for telecom services in the world, a fact that is often attributed to the lack of competition in the industry. If the 'big four' are genuinely concerned about the welfare of consumers, they should welcome measures to increase competition, which could lead to lower prices and improved services.

So, while Bell's call for less government intervention may seem appealing on the surface, it's essential to consider the broader context. A truly competitive market in the Canadian telecom industry would likely require more regulation, not less, to break down the barriers to entry for smaller companies and ensure fair competition. Bell can't have it both ways - they can't ask for regulation when it benefits them and complain when it doesn't. It's time for the major telecoms to embrace true competition, for the benefit of all Canadians.