|
to Gone
Re: [Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmaresaid by Gone:It's also worth noting that, in addition to the most regressive UBB policies in Canada, Cogeco also has the highest TPIA access and capacity charges of any cable ISP in Canada. For this reason, it is highly unlikely that a company like Teksavvy will ever bother doing Cogeco TPIA on a wide scale without already saturating other cheaper cable providers first.
Regressive UBB, Regressive TPIA, and they can't even compete in an open market in Europe. Owned by a single family in Quebec with no one to answer to. Fucktards on multiple levels. Don't forget it also counts as two separate networks, Cogeco Ontario and Cogeco Quebec. So in addition to being the highest TPIA rate you have to pay them double, separate all your capacity planning, etc.. In essence, two really tiny footprints for an obscene amount of money. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 3:18 pm · (locked) |
|
Insignificnt
Anon
2012-Jan-27 3:32 pm
said by ruddypict:two really tiny footprints for an obscene amount of money. As the CRTC stated over and over again all this year, one of the big players are going to lose and be bought out. Do you think it will be Rogers? heh. Bell? lol Videotron? haha Telus? Shaw? *giggle* Gov owned Sasktel? Cogeco's Quebec footprint is pretty damn insignificant. A tiny dot on the map in 3 rivers which is segregated from the Ontario network. Nor is their Ontario market that large to begin with. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 3:32 pm · (locked) |
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada 1 edit |
said by Insignificnt :As the CRTC stated over and over again all this year, one of the big players are going to lose and be bought out. I'd like to see SHAW buy Cogeco. THAT would shake things up a bit ! Or TELUS could buy them. BTW, it turns out that Telus already owns most if not all of the phone exchange registrations which Cogeco uses. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 3:37 pm · (locked) |
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
to Insignificnt
said by Insignificnt :Videotron? haha The Quebec government fought tooth and nail to prevent Rogers from doing it before. Videotron will always be owned by someone or something in Quebec. Bet on it. said by Insignificnt :Nor is their Ontario market that large to begin with. It actually covers some of the larger cities in the province, namely Hamilton, Windsor, Halton and Niagara. It's not Toronto, but it's not exactly small backwood communities either. Cogeco's markets in Ontario are all Tier 1, whereas all the markets in Quebec are Tier 2 and 3. If I were a betting man, I'd put money on Shaw making a move on Cogeco. They're locked in a fight with Telus in Western Canada. The Cogeco markets in Ontario are large enough and devoid of Bell well enough to be prime profitable pickings. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 3:38 pm · (locked) |
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
said by Gone:If I were a betting man, I'd put money on Shaw making a move on Cogeco. They're locked in a fight with Telus in Western Canada. The Cogeco markets in Ontario are large enough and devoid of Bell well enough to be prime profitable pickings. Shaw bought Mountain Cable a few years back, so they're already in COGECO's backyard, but unless Shaw overbuilds into COGECO land, you are simply replacing one monopoly with another. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 3:43 pm · (locked) |
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2012-Jan-27 3:45 pm
said by elwoodblues:Shaw bought Mountain Cable a few years back, so they're already in COGECO's backyard, but unless Shaw overbuilds into COGECO land, you are simply replacing one monopoly with another. If one looks at the way Shaw markets their offerings, they're much better. It could also shake up the whole UBB landscape in Eastern Canada. Indeed, it always pains me just how good the guys on Hamilton Mountain have it versus the guys in the lower-end of the city. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 3:45 pm · (locked) |
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada |
said by Gone:If one looks at the way Shaw markets their offerings, they're much better.
It could also shake up the whole UBB landscape in Eastern Canada.
Indeed, it always pains me just how good the guys on Hamilton Mountain have it versus the guys in the lower-end of the city. You SAVED me a post ! Well, not REALLY, as I had to say so. The way that Shaw & Telus are playing 'Nice' out West makes me think that they understand what business models work for them already, and might be willing to try them HERE. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 3:48 pm · (locked) |
|
to Gone
said by Gone:said by elwoodblues:Shaw bought Mountain Cable a few years back, so they're already in COGECO's backyard, but unless Shaw overbuilds into COGECO land, you are simply replacing one monopoly with another. If one looks at the way Shaw markets their offerings, they're much better. It could also shake up the whole UBB landscape in Eastern Canada. Indeed, it always pains me just how good the guys on Hamilton Mountain have it versus the guys in the lower-end of the city. I am stuck in the pocket of Hamilton Mountain that is cogeco territory |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 3:49 pm · (locked) |
|
to Insignificnt
said by Insignificnt :said by ruddypict:two really tiny footprints for an obscene amount of money. As the CRTC stated over and over again all this year, one of the big players are going to lose and be bought out. Do you have references I can check out? |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 3:53 pm · (locked) |
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
said by ruddypict:said by Insignificnt :said by ruddypict:two really tiny footprints for an obscene amount of money. As the CRTC stated over and over again all this year, one of the big players are going to lose and be bought out. Do you have references I can check out? The only one I can see is Telus, they don't have any broadcast properties, that would cause the Twin Sticks ruling to kick in. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 3:54 pm · (locked) |
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
to JDaily4
said by JDaily4:I am stuck in the pocket of Hamilton Mountain that is cogeco territory Ah, east mountain eh? There is also a little tiny pocket of lower Hamilton south of Barton along Woodward that is Shaw, too. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 3:55 pm · (locked) |
Gone |
to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:The only one I can see is Telus, they don't have any broadcast properties, that would cause the Twin Sticks ruling to kick in. Telus has a wireless network though which is a cash cow in itself. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 3:56 pm · (locked) |
|
not handy to ruddypict
Anon
2012-Jan-27 4:41 pm
to ruddypict
said by ruddypict:said by Insignificnt :said by ruddypict:two really tiny footprints for an obscene amount of money. As the CRTC stated over and over again all this year, one of the big players are going to lose and be bought out. Do you have references I can check out? Ask in the Canadian broadband forum. I *think* it was during oral hearings, maybe to the press as well. Not sure if it was in any of their rulings or reports. Think their may be topic on it in that forum as well. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 4:41 pm · (locked) |
|
Place Bets to Gone
Anon
2012-Jan-27 4:41 pm
to Gone
If i'm not mistaken, Rogers now has a stake in Cogeco.
Ideally it should be Videotron or Shaw. But it would likely turn out to be Rogers.
So if I were a betting man I would place my money on Rogers. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 4:41 pm · (locked) |
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2012-Jan-27 4:46 pm
said by Place Bets :If i'm not mistaken, Rogers now has a stake in Cogeco.
Ideally it should be Videotron or Shaw. But it would likely turn out to be Rogers.
So if I were a betting man I would place my money on Rogers. Rogers owns a small percentage, it's nothing significant and I don't believe they have any sort of controlling rights, either. I suspect it would be Shaw because, ultimately, they would be the ones willing to pay the most money for it. This situation happened in Hamilton - Mountain originally went to Rogers, but they wouldn't pay up so they went to Shaw instead. I believe Eastlink was also involved, but Cogeco was excluded (can't say I'm surprised, Cogeco had been pestering them to buy the company for years) |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 4:46 pm · (locked) |
peterboro (banned)Avatars are for posers join:2006-11-03 Peterborough, ON |
to Place Bets
said by Place Bets :If i'm not mistaken, Rogers now has a stake in Cogeco. A significant enough stake to hold off Telus or Shaw. The red vans will cruise the Peterborough streets soon enough. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 5:11 pm · (locked) |
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2012-Jan-27 5:23 pm
said by peterboro:A significant enough stake to hold off Telus or Shaw. The red vans will cruise the Peterborough streets soon enough. As I understand it, the Audet Family's stake is still large enough that they have the ultimate say over a sale. Rogers may own a stake, but if Shaw did come out and purchase it all it would mean is that Rogers would end up owning a much smaller piece of Shaw as a whole - that is, unless the CRTC forces them to sell it. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 5:23 pm · (locked) |
peterboro (banned)Avatars are for posers join:2006-11-03 Peterborough, ON |
peterboro (banned)
Member
2012-Jan-27 5:26 pm
It also means the Rogers stake while not able to block becomes a hostile factor necessitating a higher purchase price that may not garner the return or market influence metric they want. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 5:26 pm · (locked) |
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2012-Jan-27 5:28 pm
said by peterboro:It also means the Rogers stake while not able to block becomes a hostile factor necessitating a higher purchase price that may not garner the return or market influence metric they want. Right, but that's a bit different than saying that Rogers has the ability to block any sale. They might be an annoyance, but ultimately the Audet's have the final say. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 5:28 pm · (locked) |
peterboro (banned)Avatars are for posers join:2006-11-03 Peterborough, ON |
peterboro (banned)
Member
2012-Jan-27 5:33 pm
said by Gone: Right, but that's a bit different than saying that Rogers has the ability to block any sale. While semantic in nature share price is a defacto block in the world of M&A. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 5:33 pm · (locked) |
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada |
to Gone
said by Gone:Rogers owns a small percentage [of Cogeco].
It's nothing significant and I don't believe they have any sort of controlling rights, either.... Just a 'small' 30 to 40%, yes. But some are indeed 'non-voting' shares, I heard. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 7:37 pm · (locked) |
jfmezei Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Pointe-Claire, QC |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Jan-27 7:59 pm
Last I looked, the Audet family has special shares with something like 10 votes per share, while Rogers has 1 vote per share. The end result is that the Audet more than have full control of the company while folks like Rogers just benefit from the return on investment (but likely have a seat on the board to "suggest" things.)
By being best buddies with the Audet family, Rogers probbaly has a prime seat for when they are ready to sell. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 7:59 pm · (locked) |
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada |
said by jfmezei:....The end result is that the Audet more than have full control of the company while folks like Rogers just benefit from the return on investment (but likely have a seat on the board to "suggest" things " GOLF.) .... Yes, however I fixed something for you there. (though some folks here may not 'get it'.) |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 8:10 pm · (locked) |
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON 1 edit |
to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:said by Gone:Rogers owns a small percentage [of Cogeco].
It's nothing significant and I don't believe they have any sort of controlling rights, either.... Just a 'small' 30 to 40%, yes. But some are indeed 'non-voting' shares, I heard. you sure? I thought it was less than 15%? I'd check right now bit I'm on my phone. Edit - Meh I found it anyway, and I was almost right its a tad over 15% » www.crtc.gc.ca/ownership ··· ht43.pdf nowhere near 30-40. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 8:20 pm · (locked) |
jfmezei Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Pointe-Claire, QC 1 edit |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2012-Jan-27 8:31 pm
I think they have a 40% in equity, but a very small portion in votes. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 8:31 pm · (locked) |
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada 1 edit |
40 RedBulls |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 8:34 pm · (locked) |
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
to jfmezei
Well, the CRTC docs say their ownership is only 16% or so. They used to own more but I believe they sold it back to the Audet's a few years back. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 8:36 pm · (locked) |
jfmezei Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Pointe-Claire, QC |
to Gone
From the top right of that document: ## Les pourcentages font reference aux droits de vote seulement / The percentages refer to voting rights only ## |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 8:40 pm · (locked) |
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2012-Jan-27 8:43 pm
Ah I missed that. I'll try to dig up more when I get to a computer. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 8:43 pm · (locked) |
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada |
to jfmezei
said by jfmezei:....The percentages refer to voting rights only What is the URL of the parent page for that doc ? I'd be curious to examine the equivalent sheets for B$ELL and some of the others. |
actions · 2012-Jan-27 9:25 pm · (locked) |