dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
62

ruddypict
join:2010-03-24

ruddypict to Gone

Member

to Gone

Re: [Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare

said 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.

Insignificnt
@videotron.ca

Insignificnt

Anon

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.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

1 edit

Davesnothere

Premium Member

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.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone to Insignificnt

Premium Member

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.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

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.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

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.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

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.
JDaily4
join:2012-01-27

JDaily4 to Gone

Member

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

ruddypict
join:2010-03-24

ruddypict to Insignificnt

Member

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?

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

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.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone to JDaily4

Premium Member

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.
Gone

Gone to elwoodblues

Premium Member

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.

not handy
@videotron.ca

not handy to ruddypict

Anon

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.

Place Bets
@videotron.ca

Place Bets to Gone

Anon

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.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

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)
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned) to Place Bets

Member

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.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

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.
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned)

Member

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.

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

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.
peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned)

Member

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.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere to Gone

Premium Member

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.
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei

Premium Member

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.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

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'.)

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

1 edit

Gone to Davesnothere

Premium Member

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.
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

1 edit

jfmezei

Premium Member

I think they have a 40% in equity, but a very small portion in votes.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

1 edit

Davesnothere

Premium Member

 
40 RedBulls

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone to jfmezei

Premium Member

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.
jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei to Gone

Premium Member

to Gone
said by Gone:

[
»www.crtc.gc.ca/ownership ··· ht43.pdf nowhere near 30-40.

From the top right of that document:

##
Les pourcentages font reference aux droits de vote seulement / The percentages refer to voting rights only
##

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

Ah I missed that. I'll try to dig up more when I get to a computer.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere to jfmezei

Premium Member

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.