this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
61 points (94.2% liked)

Canada

7215 readers
394 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
61
Should telecommunications be nationalized? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 7 months ago by Beaver@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2024/04/17/should-telecommunications-be-nationalized/418145/

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 39 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Nationalize (or at least crown corp) everything.

Energy

Telecom/Internet

Food

Water

Natural resources

Insurance

Transportation

Housing (edited to include)

The idea that it's better to have single/few entities profiting instead of every Canadian benefitting is ridiculous.

Nobody is saying you can't be profitable and wealthy if you run a successful business.

But that's not what Canada is about, what we have in Canada is collusion and price fixing by like 8 businesses that own nearly everything in Canada completely unchecked.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

+Housing!

[–] ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Definitely adding this to the comment!

[–] morbidcactus@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

That sure looks like a list of things that were once crown corps and then sold for pennies by Tories to the detriment of the Canadian population

[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

Saskatchewan is trying to do this now still sadly, despite them all being profitable unless sabatoged.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago

Products and services needed to survive and function in modern society should all be provided by nonprofits.

Your list covers everything I'd take away from corporate control.

[–] akakunai@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

What do you mean by nationalizing food? Between agriculture, making of food products, grocery stores, restaurants, etc...what would be nationalized?

All other items on this list I can understand, but I'm confused as to what nationalizing "food" would entail.

[–] ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Since most grocers in Canada have internalized a large portion of the supply chain (and don't have to really compete with each other since there aren't many options) they have several ways to affect prices at multiple points in the supply chain.

"we only make 3% profits at retail!" while they jack up farm cost, processing cost, warehouse cost, distribution cost, etc etc. They are picking up profits from themselves, but counting it at a cost to obfuscate their margins as only being obtained once its bought at the end of the supply line (retail)

You can nationalize food by knowing how much real costs are throughout the supply chain and capping costs for consumers either through policy, or by mandating that prices for groceries are set by the government.

It can still be operated by a private business, but they would have to stop unlimited profits at the expense of the population for guaranteed, smaller profits to the benefit of everyone who eats food.

Let me tell ya, if I had the option to eat a capitalism apple at $8/each, or the same nationalized apple for $1/each I'm eating the nationalized apple.

The general population seems to hate taxes (mostly because the wealthy don't actually pay taxes and also receive subsidies) - but somehow don't associate profiteering as a wealth Tax that never returns to the public like real taxes, and instead often defend a businesses prerogative to profit seek, even at their own detriment.

Public taxes that pay for social systems? Bad!

Private taxes (excess profits) that exclusively benefit the wealthy? Good!

[–] Someone@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

"we only make 3% profits at retail!" while they jack up farm cost, processing cost, warehouse cost, distribution cost, etc etc. They are picking up profits from themselves, but counting it at a cost to obfuscate their margins as only being obtained once its bought at the end of the supply line (retail)

Corporations treat finances like an art instead of simple math. The company I work for charges each worksite over $100 for an item that uses less than $10 of material (mostly scrap) and at most 15 minutes to manufacture in house. No money actually changes hands, it just eats up the local budget so we can't order equipment that the company actually has to pay for (and additionally it probably looks like an inflated expense to write off).

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I think a good approach would be to create a nationalized not-for-profit option that the other chains would have to compete with. Maybe it wouldn’t have all the fancy stuff, but your bread, eggs, meat and produce would be cheap.

This would bring down prices all around and if you want to pay more for better stuff, you can do that at the private stores, and that’s where the capitalists can invest.

[–] quilter@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

what is fancy stuff

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Basically, store brand vs name brand. Maybe fancy is a strong word πŸ€·πŸ»β€β™‚οΈ

[–] balootgaloot@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

Vertically integrated graft for one.

[–] Hootz@lemmy.ca 25 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes is the only answer... Unless you hate Canada.

[–] pbjamm@beehaw.org 2 points 7 months ago

At the very least there needs to be a baseline minimum that is available from your municipality, 50/50Mbps for instance. If that is inadequate for your needs you can pay more or purchase speciality service from a private provider.

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yes, because the requirement for extensive infrastructure running across large stretches of land makes market entry nearly impossible for new competitors (while also being disruptive for customers if it does become possible). Hence all the issues we have with lack of competition and its effects.

If by the nature of the product or service there is no ease of switching providers and if the thing is a necessity to get by in the modern world, it shouldn't be (solely) private.

[–] AnotherDirtyAnglo@lemmy.ca 18 points 7 months ago

Yes, cell towers should all be nationalized, then anyone can compete on service and price, not on coverage. Instantly everyone gets better coverage in more places, with more bandwidth because they can get service from any tower. Instantly, prices hit rock bottom because there's no barrier to entry.

[–] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 7 months ago

Fucking right it should be, the triopoly is not working with the interest of the average Canadian. My small town the best wired internet I can get is 10/5 Mbps. Just moved from a small city 30 min away and they have a standard 1.5 Gbps and we're looking to upgrade to 3 Gbps right before I moved

Am currently on a wireless 20/10 Mbps with a 400 GB cap. Yet the fibre connections get UNLIMITED bandwidth.

Oh and that 10/5 connection also costs more than fibre...

Fuck the tropoly

[–] zcd@lemmy.ca 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Does the tin man have a sheetmetal cock?

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

The tin man has cancer because of the aluminum paint they lied about being safe.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 months ago

Bring back BCTEL!

[–] n7gifmdn@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago

I don't trustpoliticianns to be farsighted than enough to run such well. But if we keep the politicians out and allow the workers to seize the telecommunications systems from the bosses free of consequence, that might actually work.

[–] LittleTarsier@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago

Commons did an episode on the telecoms and how we got to this point. Definitely worth a listen if you want to know more.

[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

Yes, in Saskatchewan we have the cheapest telecoms because of a crown corporation that is very profitable.

Our provincial government is trying to shut it down and sell it because they are bunch or corrupt assholes and hate their constituents and want not but wealth for themselves and friends.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You can switch to the other telecom towers to avoid the big three.

https://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html?lat=58.496162&lng=-107.358398&zoom=4&type=Roadmap&layers=o&pid=0&ds=0

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

Should the whole thing be nationalized? No

Should parts of the system, specifically the last mile where economies of scale and first mover advantage are being exploited, be nationalized? Probably

[–] quilter@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago

Inventing telus and sasktel here :)

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 0 points 7 months ago

At least baseline 5g sure. Then future innovation can be a private premium. Then in a decade or two the municipal stuff can be updated.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca -5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Is this a joke question?

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Telecom higher up is upset

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Are you drunk or something...everyone gets fucked over by telecom companies, they need not exist. This is just a dumb question because it's painfully obvious answer amongst the majority who have literally no control over anything

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

There is so much to learn, here. From comma splices, to adverbs beyond the one, to the important role telecom organizations - state and private - fulfill in learning through the apparent externalization of far-out ideas to people far away.