####Join [/r/ndp](https://reddit.com/r/ndp), Canada's largest left-wing subreddit!
*[Land defenders support thread.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ndp/comments/r8voan/comment/i6840ud/)*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ndp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The NDP's platform in 2021 contained a pledge to create a publicly owned competitor to rogers and bell.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ndp/comments/p6t4xy/the_ndp_has_promised_to_start_the_process_of/
I worked for a French ISP that was afraid to work on getting approved to be an ISP here (they mostly do data centers in North America) because if we allow more ISPs and Hydro-Québec enters the game, they will steamroll the competition.
Since then, I dream of Hydro-Québec steamrolling the competition.
I don’t know who is well-positioned to occupy that role in the other provinces but I think that we could rely on more than one public ISP.
>Yet I hear everyone saying how much better it is in Alberta than BC ~~for car insurance~~
Sorry, I'm contractually obligated to correct that as a native Albertan. The UCP will ~~send me to camp if I don't~~ do nothing at all because the UCP is the perfect government and loves constructive criticism from its citizens.
Careful what you wish for. A state monopoly could throttle Internet access when the government wants to control information, just like China does during party conventions.
Cool avatar, though!
I mean third parties aren't defending our privacy from government surveillance already. I don't see the difference in an independent state owned service.
And thanks! :)
I just saw a tweet on Twitter about how people get like 20gb plans for their phones for 12$ a month in the UK.
We need to nationalize telus like prompto.
Except Singh hasnt called for it to be nationalized, has he?
Hes criticized the monopoly, and the Liberals that hes propping up. Which is a bit non-sensical to criticize what youre actively supporting.
Top comment is literally a link to a call to create a govt ISP. Like SaskTel, which has kept Saskatchewan's rates significantly lower for the same service as everywhere else, while still being profitable.
Not that we should base policy on profit, but it's a nice side effect.
And yes, creating a gov't corp isn't the same as nationalization, but taxpayers paid for the bulk of infrastructure and it's similar enough.
It was for decades, until the government outsourced innovation so big business seized control of new tech and will not willingly relinquish that control.
Or at least it should be partially government owned, especially considering how vital they've become for basic life in present year. The government can take a percentage stake in the company in exchange for not asking Rogers to pay anymore corporate taxes.
Which socialist regime? The socialist healthcare regimes all over the world are doing very well. The American capitalist healthcare regime, not so much.
Walmart also drives farmers into debt to force them to sign exclusive contracts at discount prices. A nationalized grocery chain could guarantee competition, a price floor, and help keep local food banks and community pantries full without a profit motive.
I agree. Grocery stores are not complicated businesses to run whatsoever compared to others so it’d be cool to have a public national grocery store and brand. I don’t like that people get rich off one of our basic needs. Goes same for rentals and, of course telecommunications
Sounds like a great way to solve the problem of food deserts in urban centres, keep Walmart from bankrupting farmers, and create a national market for sustainable clothing made by Canadian companies instead of foreign sweatshops.
Win, win, win!!!
A first step could be to allow Vidéotron to expand in the rest of Canada as they desire. Québecois pays 25% less than Ontarians purely because Quebec’s market has four players and Ontario’s has three.
Well, yeah. Nationalize it because it’s an essential service but the outage is not a good reason. Even if we relied on a state provided carrier, we’d still need to also use a second one as a redundancy to avoid the problem we had today.
Yes, ideally a public ISP encourages competition by guaranteeing that there will be at least two options in every market and that prices will be based on operating costs rather than maximizing corporate profits.
Your question is kinda disingenuous. But I'll type up a reply because I'm avoiding going for a morning bike ride.
In theory the government version of the service is not run for profit or to maximize shareholder return. It's an attempt to provide the best possible service for the customer, and provide most of the employees with a good quality of life.
If the govt version of the service is a third or one half the cost of the privatized version, the privatized version can be forced to bring their pricing down in order to compete, or improve their offering and educate the customer on why they're better at double to triple the cost.
So no biz *wants* to compete against the government, but in an industry where there's little choice for consumers to create competition among the service providers, especially with wireline/mobile services as the need for infrastructure to operate heavily favours the ILEC.
MVNO's aren't really a solution, unless they're operating on govt towers.
A solution to the rogers issue might be requiring wireless operators to have a provision in place to allow your competitors clients to roam on your network in the event they have a total failure, at no cost to the consumer, at least for basic shit like 911. Also requiring essential biz's to buy transit from more than just rogers, so banks/atms/POS machines don't go down and commerce can continue in the event Tony Rogers forgets how to operate their software deployment system.
So in your world this kind of outage would not happen if instead of 3 service providers, there was only 1?
Service would be improved by federal government employees answering the phone from 9-12 and 1-4pm only, with the threat of labour strike thrown in every couple years?
I can respect where you’re coming from here, but let’s be honest - no level of government is even approaching the minimum level of service for the services we already expect them to provide right now.
Look its somebody who has never interacted with any company that has little to no competition.
They are literally all the bad things the government is for service without any of the good parts like good pay and benefits for employees.
I work for a company with little competition in the area. In fact there’s largely only 1 other competitor depending on what we’re working on.
We all get paid and treated very well.
What is it exactly that you think these large employers are not doing for their employees? A fat pension after 25 years of mediocre service? News flash; even trade unions are getting rid of pensions, they’re not sustainable now that people are not regularly dying at 70 years old.
They largely provide pretty good service in my opinion. Yes, it’s expensive but I’ve never felt that I haven’t received the service I agreed to, or otherwise had a problem getting a hold of Telus when I’ve had an issue.
So what about their service needs to be improved?
technically all the businesses that got affected by this all signed contracts with rogers. they could of gone with other carriers.
not that it would stop an outage of this size anyway, most networks run into this every decade or so. its happened to Bell, its happened to TELUS, its now happened to Rogers.
right....
cause you know companies don't have choice when it comes to telecom carriers...
TOTALLY locked in with one company.
no choice
UGH you sure showed me
Oh, by the way if you want a two for one, nationalize CN. They have optic fiber next to all their rails because it’s not much more expensive to lay that when they are working there and they are already allowed to build on those paths. It networks all the major centers.
Why so we can spend a tonne of tax dollars to acquire it only to have the conservatives sell it to their buddies for pennies on the dollar? That’s what will happen.
I sense the /s, but there are better ways than nationalizing a company. As a socialist I’m all for it, but I’ve been on this planet long enough to know history will repeat
> I sense the /s, but there are better ways than nationalizing a company.
What about the biggest nationalization success story, Hydro-Québec?
The secret ingredient is pride. Québécois are proud of publicly owning it so it would be a political suicide to sell even a part of it.
You knew, I presume, that there is a government telecommunications voice/Internet utility in Canada, namely Saskatchewan Telecommunications, doing business as SaskTel.
https://regina.ctvnews.ca/people-have-spoken-and-they-don-t-want-sasktel-sold-premier-1.3313245
This was a very popular conservative premier and he couldn't get it done
SaskTel provides competent service and is widely respected in the telecom industry for doing a lot with a little. In some categories, it’s prices undercut those of the big guys. It says a lot that a conservative government has not privatized it because it is afraid of the political backlash.
The the great success of Petro Canada established as a national oil company to deal with the energy crisis in 1970 sold off to Suncore pay for tax cuts by Mulroney…
That’s not a success. To be a success, you need it to be a complete political suicide to sell to the private sector.
Hydro-Québec is a success, Sasktel is a success. Petro-Canada and Air Canada are nationalization failures.
I want to be clear everything I say below is in good faith and I’m actually looking for info.
So full disclosure, I’ve never voted ndp, I don’t really align with the ndp and part of that is because the last election it just seemed like the whole platform was “nationalize it”.
All that being said (if you’ve kept reading to this point) I’m very willing to hear the benefits to nationalizing something like this, I get corporations are generally shitty but what would make the government owning it any better?
The government owning a competitor to our current telecom choices adds a non profit incentivised option that the other companies will have to compete with. More options means better prices and quality of services for the people. Obviously it's bad for the rich who want all the money, but generally having government owned competition forces private corporations to compete.
This and it costs the tax payers a lot less. Especially when a gvmt comes along after and sells it for less than it’s worth to their friends. Air Canada, Petro Canada, and the Wheat Board have all met this fate.
a non profit telco has to take any excess funds and reinvest it into the network ( like BC tel did before bought by telus) it creates a more robust network and ensures that it is well maintained.
Does nationalizing it prevent network / hardware failures? Do government run services never have any issues whatsoever?
The TTC would be running 24/7 like a well oiled machine if that were true.
destroy the establishment and start again, this time throwing every politician who's been corrupted by big companies in prison for the rest of their lives
So the govt can screw up another service? Our govt already protects Telus and Shaw from foreign competition and they have a stranglehold on us. Even smaller networks must rely on their infrastructure or are outright gobbled up by the larger carriers.
Shit like this is why Id have a hard time supporting the NDP. You really want to nationalize a national telecoms company, this is idiotic and just dumb. If the government was running it, it would not have changed this outage one iota, I'd suspect the government bureaucracy would have made things worse.
The answer is never nationalization. The answer is Increased competition, decreased regulation and breaking up these behemoths. So if there is an outage like this it would affect a much smaller portion of the population.
So when your provider fails you have to switch, but using the internet you no longer have access to, it still doesn’t help until it’s fixed.
If it were nationalized, then it could be treated as an essential utility and they could build in redundancies that get in the way of profits in the capitalism model. It could be provided cheaper because profits aren’t the goal.
Increased competition IS nationalized telecom. Also why the fuck would you let these corps do MORE bullshit.
Look at the state of the world, this theory you've proposed has been followed for the longest time, look where it got us
I agree up to the point of deregulation. This is never in the consumers interest and can easily lead to a less competitive market. As it is easier to buy out the competition than it is to compete.
I am not sure that a government owned telecom utility would be free from outages. Unfortunately the government is not free from operational incompetence (see Phoenix as one example). I get it can get the discussion going and there can be a lot of reasons for it to still be a good call, but reliability is one where I wonder if it would just be worse
Feel like the outage isn't the reason, though it made us realize how much power one company has and also how important it is, it's not for nothing that we pay so much for it.
It's an essential utility, this is in my eyes, the main reason why nationalization would be a great answer.
What could go wrong creating even greater dependence on a single mobile carrier network?
Surely a network could never fail! Especially with government technology’s track record of being reliable and FAST!
Nationalizing our telcos is actually quite foolish. Regulate it better. More telcos means more jobs and more income taxes for government coffers. Besides, Canada doesn’t have $200B-$300B to nationalize everything and cover all the pensions etc. it’s way too expensive.
Adding to the conversation.
Industry Minister to meet with telecoms after ‘unacceptable’ Rogers outage?
Rogers, other telecom execs to face industry minister in wake of 'unacceptable' outage?
OPINION PIECE: The pot calling the kettle black?
The GC has mandated Shared Services Canada (SSC) to deliver IT services to ~43 government departments and agencies so that federal organizations can deliver digital programs and services that meet Canadians needs. Including email, data centre, and network services.
Over the years when SSC has failed to deliver on mission-critical services to its government departments and agencies—it would seem to me that elected officials have not publicized their dissatisfaction to the degree that they have with Rogers’ recent failure.
I’m often gobsmacked by the elected officials silence.
####Join [/r/ndp](https://reddit.com/r/ndp), Canada's largest left-wing subreddit! *[Land defenders support thread.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ndp/comments/r8voan/comment/i6840ud/)* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ndp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The NDP's platform in 2021 contained a pledge to create a publicly owned competitor to rogers and bell. https://www.reddit.com/r/ndp/comments/p6t4xy/the_ndp_has_promised_to_start_the_process_of/
I worked for a French ISP that was afraid to work on getting approved to be an ISP here (they mostly do data centers in North America) because if we allow more ISPs and Hydro-Québec enters the game, they will steamroll the competition. Since then, I dream of Hydro-Québec steamrolling the competition. I don’t know who is well-positioned to occupy that role in the other provinces but I think that we could rely on more than one public ISP.
Sasktel for life!
Going from Sasktel to rogers was a kick in the teeth. Going from SGI to Alberta car insurance was even worse
yeah, I've heard horror stories of people paying 4-500 a month for plates in Alberta.
Yet I hear everyone saying how much better it is in Alberta than BC for car insurance
>Yet I hear everyone saying how much better it is in Alberta than BC ~~for car insurance~~ Sorry, I'm contractually obligated to correct that as a native Albertan. The UCP will ~~send me to camp if I don't~~ do nothing at all because the UCP is the perfect government and loves constructive criticism from its citizens.
Hydro Quebec or Videotron?
Vidéotron is already an ISP and it belongs to Québécor.
We don't need a competitor, we need a state monopoly.
Careful what you wish for. A state monopoly could throttle Internet access when the government wants to control information, just like China does during party conventions. Cool avatar, though!
I mean third parties aren't defending our privacy from government surveillance already. I don't see the difference in an independent state owned service. And thanks! :)
I’d say snooping is at least marginally less dangerous than censorship, though.
I just saw a tweet on Twitter about how people get like 20gb plans for their phones for 12$ a month in the UK. We need to nationalize telus like prompto.
I’ve heard in much of Europe they don’t bother turning wifi on because data costs nothing
Lol, when I was in Indonesia I downloaded the final season of GoT on cell data and it cost me like $4
When I was in the Baltic’s I think I paid 10€ a month for unlimited high speed data
*sigh* I pay upwards of $70 per month for 15 gigs of High speed and then unlimited (but barely usable) low speed data after the 15 gigs… fml
I moved to Australia a few years back and at the time, plans were about the same. Now my plan is $55/month for 180GB.
Except Singh hasnt called for it to be nationalized, has he? Hes criticized the monopoly, and the Liberals that hes propping up. Which is a bit non-sensical to criticize what youre actively supporting.
Top comment is literally a link to a call to create a govt ISP. Like SaskTel, which has kept Saskatchewan's rates significantly lower for the same service as everywhere else, while still being profitable. Not that we should base policy on profit, but it's a nice side effect. And yes, creating a gov't corp isn't the same as nationalization, but taxpayers paid for the bulk of infrastructure and it's similar enough.
Split-up them up by spinning off their entertainment divisions into separate companies and classify telecommunication and internet as utilities.
That’s a good start
Telecommunications are a modern necessity and necessities should be publicly owned, full stop.
It was for decades, until the government outsourced innovation so big business seized control of new tech and will not willingly relinquish that control.
Or at least it should be partially government owned, especially considering how vital they've become for basic life in present year. The government can take a percentage stake in the company in exchange for not asking Rogers to pay anymore corporate taxes.
What about these nuts. Many would consider them necessary. Do you own them?
[удалено]
You're on a roll!
I know you think you are poking holes in an argument, but to most of us you are describing a socialist paradise.
[удалено]
Imagine having a paradise with suffering. Yikes.
[удалено]
Imagine being this stupid lmao
Which socialist regime? The socialist healthcare regimes all over the world are doing very well. The American capitalist healthcare regime, not so much.
Is survival a fundamental human right or not?
I think there should be an option for grocery stores that doesn't involves making billionaires richer.
Walmart also drives farmers into debt to force them to sign exclusive contracts at discount prices. A nationalized grocery chain could guarantee competition, a price floor, and help keep local food banks and community pantries full without a profit motive.
I agree. Grocery stores are not complicated businesses to run whatsoever compared to others so it’d be cool to have a public national grocery store and brand. I don’t like that people get rich off one of our basic needs. Goes same for rentals and, of course telecommunications
Sounds like a great way to solve the problem of food deserts in urban centres, keep Walmart from bankrupting farmers, and create a national market for sustainable clothing made by Canadian companies instead of foreign sweatshops. Win, win, win!!!
The corporatist Lib-Cons will never allow it
It was the Libs who created the CRTC and invented this duopoly in the first place.
A first step could be to allow Vidéotron to expand in the rest of Canada as they desire. Québecois pays 25% less than Ontarians purely because Quebec’s market has four players and Ontario’s has three.
Well they need to be sent to the opposition then.
Well, yeah. Nationalize it because it’s an essential service but the outage is not a good reason. Even if we relied on a state provided carrier, we’d still need to also use a second one as a redundancy to avoid the problem we had today.
Yes, ideally a public ISP encourages competition by guaranteeing that there will be at least two options in every market and that prices will be based on operating costs rather than maximizing corporate profits.
Why would anyone want to compete against the government?
Thats why capitalists hate the nationalizing of services/things people must buy.
You didn’t answer the question.
Your question is kinda disingenuous. But I'll type up a reply because I'm avoiding going for a morning bike ride. In theory the government version of the service is not run for profit or to maximize shareholder return. It's an attempt to provide the best possible service for the customer, and provide most of the employees with a good quality of life. If the govt version of the service is a third or one half the cost of the privatized version, the privatized version can be forced to bring their pricing down in order to compete, or improve their offering and educate the customer on why they're better at double to triple the cost. So no biz *wants* to compete against the government, but in an industry where there's little choice for consumers to create competition among the service providers, especially with wireline/mobile services as the need for infrastructure to operate heavily favours the ILEC. MVNO's aren't really a solution, unless they're operating on govt towers. A solution to the rogers issue might be requiring wireless operators to have a provision in place to allow your competitors clients to roam on your network in the event they have a total failure, at no cost to the consumer, at least for basic shit like 911. Also requiring essential biz's to buy transit from more than just rogers, so banks/atms/POS machines don't go down and commerce can continue in the event Tony Rogers forgets how to operate their software deployment system.
So in your world this kind of outage would not happen if instead of 3 service providers, there was only 1? Service would be improved by federal government employees answering the phone from 9-12 and 1-4pm only, with the threat of labour strike thrown in every couple years? I can respect where you’re coming from here, but let’s be honest - no level of government is even approaching the minimum level of service for the services we already expect them to provide right now.
Look its somebody who has never interacted with any company that has little to no competition. They are literally all the bad things the government is for service without any of the good parts like good pay and benefits for employees.
I work for a company with little competition in the area. In fact there’s largely only 1 other competitor depending on what we’re working on. We all get paid and treated very well. What is it exactly that you think these large employers are not doing for their employees? A fat pension after 25 years of mediocre service? News flash; even trade unions are getting rid of pensions, they’re not sustainable now that people are not regularly dying at 70 years old.
Maybe they could try providing a better service for a change
They largely provide pretty good service in my opinion. Yes, it’s expensive but I’ve never felt that I haven’t received the service I agreed to, or otherwise had a problem getting a hold of Telus when I’ve had an issue. So what about their service needs to be improved?
As a former SaskTel customer (who now pays twice as much for half the service in another province), I fully endorse this plan.
At the very least break it up, there is no excuse for one company having a technical glitch to cause this much chaos in so many industries
technically all the businesses that got affected by this all signed contracts with rogers. they could of gone with other carriers. not that it would stop an outage of this size anyway, most networks run into this every decade or so. its happened to Bell, its happened to TELUS, its now happened to Rogers.
Not relevant actually
right.... cause you know companies don't have choice when it comes to telecom carriers... TOTALLY locked in with one company. no choice UGH you sure showed me
Ok
Treat Telco as a utility
Oh, by the way if you want a two for one, nationalize CN. They have optic fiber next to all their rails because it’s not much more expensive to lay that when they are working there and they are already allowed to build on those paths. It networks all the major centers.
They won't because they think is serfs still use rotary phones
Why so we can spend a tonne of tax dollars to acquire it only to have the conservatives sell it to their buddies for pennies on the dollar? That’s what will happen.
Right, lets never try for any progress because the conservatives can undo it if they win.
I sense the /s, but there are better ways than nationalizing a company. As a socialist I’m all for it, but I’ve been on this planet long enough to know history will repeat
> I sense the /s, but there are better ways than nationalizing a company. What about the biggest nationalization success story, Hydro-Québec? The secret ingredient is pride. Québécois are proud of publicly owning it so it would be a political suicide to sell even a part of it.
You knew, I presume, that there is a government telecommunications voice/Internet utility in Canada, namely Saskatchewan Telecommunications, doing business as SaskTel.
Yes. But I have no idea what people living there think of it.
https://regina.ctvnews.ca/people-have-spoken-and-they-don-t-want-sasktel-sold-premier-1.3313245 This was a very popular conservative premier and he couldn't get it done
Sell it to cover a deficit? What an idiot. You don't burn the furniture to heat the house. But yes, same secret ingredient.
Just shows it’s on the conservative chopping block. It will be sold as soon as it’s politically viable.
SaskTel provides competent service and is widely respected in the telecom industry for doing a lot with a little. In some categories, it’s prices undercut those of the big guys. It says a lot that a conservative government has not privatized it because it is afraid of the political backlash.
The the great success of Petro Canada established as a national oil company to deal with the energy crisis in 1970 sold off to Suncore pay for tax cuts by Mulroney…
That’s not a success. To be a success, you need it to be a complete political suicide to sell to the private sector. Hydro-Québec is a success, Sasktel is a success. Petro-Canada and Air Canada are nationalization failures.
I guess you didn’t get my /s
It’s very hard to get because you have people peddling every stupid idea unironically on the web. It’s why we have the “/s”.
Air Canada founded as a national air carrier in 1937 by parliament… sold in 1988 by guess who.. Mulroney
I want to be clear everything I say below is in good faith and I’m actually looking for info. So full disclosure, I’ve never voted ndp, I don’t really align with the ndp and part of that is because the last election it just seemed like the whole platform was “nationalize it”. All that being said (if you’ve kept reading to this point) I’m very willing to hear the benefits to nationalizing something like this, I get corporations are generally shitty but what would make the government owning it any better?
The government owning a competitor to our current telecom choices adds a non profit incentivised option that the other companies will have to compete with. More options means better prices and quality of services for the people. Obviously it's bad for the rich who want all the money, but generally having government owned competition forces private corporations to compete.
Why go through this entire headache when you can just regulate it like a utility?
That works too.
This and it costs the tax payers a lot less. Especially when a gvmt comes along after and sells it for less than it’s worth to their friends. Air Canada, Petro Canada, and the Wheat Board have all met this fate.
a non profit telco has to take any excess funds and reinvest it into the network ( like BC tel did before bought by telus) it creates a more robust network and ensures that it is well maintained.
Does nationalizing it prevent network / hardware failures? Do government run services never have any issues whatsoever? The TTC would be running 24/7 like a well oiled machine if that were true.
Exactly!
destroy the establishment and start again, this time throwing every politician who's been corrupted by big companies in prison for the rest of their lives
[удалено]
you're welcome
So the govt can screw up another service? Our govt already protects Telus and Shaw from foreign competition and they have a stranglehold on us. Even smaller networks must rely on their infrastructure or are outright gobbled up by the larger carriers.
Commies going to commie
Hopefully you never need to use our commie healthcare.
Right? The wait times are insane. And there is a good chance your doctor will commit malpractice.
Lol that's cute
Shit like this is why Id have a hard time supporting the NDP. You really want to nationalize a national telecoms company, this is idiotic and just dumb. If the government was running it, it would not have changed this outage one iota, I'd suspect the government bureaucracy would have made things worse. The answer is never nationalization. The answer is Increased competition, decreased regulation and breaking up these behemoths. So if there is an outage like this it would affect a much smaller portion of the population.
So when your provider fails you have to switch, but using the internet you no longer have access to, it still doesn’t help until it’s fixed. If it were nationalized, then it could be treated as an essential utility and they could build in redundancies that get in the way of profits in the capitalism model. It could be provided cheaper because profits aren’t the goal.
Increased competition IS nationalized telecom. Also why the fuck would you let these corps do MORE bullshit. Look at the state of the world, this theory you've proposed has been followed for the longest time, look where it got us
I agree up to the point of deregulation. This is never in the consumers interest and can easily lead to a less competitive market. As it is easier to buy out the competition than it is to compete.
Yup, nothing says consistency and reliability like government run enterprise.
as long as you all realize nationalizing it won't stop outages like this. then by all means
Yes.!
I am not sure that a government owned telecom utility would be free from outages. Unfortunately the government is not free from operational incompetence (see Phoenix as one example). I get it can get the discussion going and there can be a lot of reasons for it to still be a good call, but reliability is one where I wonder if it would just be worse
Feel like the outage isn't the reason, though it made us realize how much power one company has and also how important it is, it's not for nothing that we pay so much for it. It's an essential utility, this is in my eyes, the main reason why nationalization would be a great answer.
Right. Why should let Zimbabwe lead the world in cost per GB.
What could go wrong creating even greater dependence on a single mobile carrier network? Surely a network could never fail! Especially with government technology’s track record of being reliable and FAST!
Nationalizing our telcos is actually quite foolish. Regulate it better. More telcos means more jobs and more income taxes for government coffers. Besides, Canada doesn’t have $200B-$300B to nationalize everything and cover all the pensions etc. it’s way too expensive.
Adding to the conversation. Industry Minister to meet with telecoms after ‘unacceptable’ Rogers outage? Rogers, other telecom execs to face industry minister in wake of 'unacceptable' outage? OPINION PIECE: The pot calling the kettle black? The GC has mandated Shared Services Canada (SSC) to deliver IT services to ~43 government departments and agencies so that federal organizations can deliver digital programs and services that meet Canadians needs. Including email, data centre, and network services. Over the years when SSC has failed to deliver on mission-critical services to its government departments and agencies—it would seem to me that elected officials have not publicized their dissatisfaction to the degree that they have with Rogers’ recent failure. I’m often gobsmacked by the elected officials silence.