Aug. 3: This week's Talking Point - wireless competition - and other letters to the editor The Harper government is adamant. It will not change its plan to spur competition in the wireless sector by giving new telecoms a special deal, no matter how big they are. Readers, print and digital, signal mixed reactions Re Ottawa Rejects Wireless Giants" Policy Push (Aug. 1): I agree that we need more competitors to drive prices down, but one of the points the Big Three are trying to make, and one that I agree with as a Canadian and consumer, is that Verizon would be unfairly taking advantage of laws that were created to make it fair for small competitors to enter our market - small competitors being Mobilicity, Wind Mobile or Public Mobile. It's like letting a great white into a tank with three tuna fish and expecting them all to play fairly. Not going to happen. Breanne Erhardt, Toronto The big telecoms" campaign is couched in a conceit of fairness. Fairness is certainly central, but the focus shouldn't be on the interests and bottom lines of corporations, but rather the overburdened wallets of consumers. Comparison of cellphone costs to those of other developed countries caused our government to address consumer complaints. Their solution was increased competition. This effort was opposed, kicking and screaming, by the Big Three. They have markedly misread the resolve of the government and the people. After a surfeit of red herrings and dramatically spun information, the 900-pound southern gorilla now looms. Some of the blame must land in the laps of those now yelling the loudest. Gary Vickers, Nepean, Ont. The fact that Telus CEO Darren Entwistle is proud of how cheap 100 calls and two gigabytes of data is (among G7 nations) illustrates a disconnect between many consumers and the incumbent wireless firms. Even if, for high-end users, those prices are competitive (itself debatable), there are millions who, either for lack of need, or lack of funds, use their mobile devices far less. Low-end users are nickel-and-dimed by the carriers far more than in other countries, as a simple comparison of the basic terms and fees of plans in different countries for prepaid service reveals. Allan Olley, Oakville, Ont. Mounting a defence against the entry of the U.S.-based Verizon into Canada, the Big Three are asking: "How does losing thousands of Canadian jobs in the cellphone industry help Canada?" Are these the same telecoms that have been shipping telephone service representatives" work overseas for years? Sid Shniad, Surrey, B.C. Never in a million years did I think I would ever side with the Big Three carriers, but in this instance they are 100-per-cent right. A level playing field creates competition. Anything less is a monopoly. David McGee, Peterborough, Ont. I don't agree with letting any major phone companies into the mix, especially foreign companies. I do think the Big Three Canadian telecoms must be forced to share 66 per cent of the current bandwidth. The rest should be made available to smaller Canadian telecom start-ups. That's the way you get competition, that's the way you give the consumer a fair deal. Steve Kirk, Calgary I have travelled to remote areas, such as Siberia, and was surprised to see people talking on cellphones and surfing the Internet. These are services unavailable to me at my cottage two hours from Toronto. The major carriers are now in high gear - not to improve our service, but to prevent Verizon's entry. On behalf of the many disgruntled customers (remember us?), bring them on. Irv Salit, Toronto Twice a year, my wife and I go to Europe for about six weeks. We have unlocked cellphones and buy SIM cards with a $20 credit in each country we stay in. It costs a fraction of what we would pay here if we went "pay as you go." The same holds true for roaming. Wolfgang Decker, New Westminster, B.C. Canada has had very good phone service. Some think that foreigners will come here and make it better. However, having spent time in Europe and the U.S., I know how good our service has been in comparison to others and I am under no delusions. There are ways to make a system better without giving foreign companies special deals that are questioned for their fairness. Kevin Darroch, Edmonton Re Who Speaks For The Consumer In Wireless Debate? Everyone (Report on Business, July 31): You report that consumers are stuck in the middle between "interest groups" and large telecom firms in the fight over wireless regulations. Why were the words "interest groups" used to describe the consumer groups, when the truly self-interested groups, the telecoms, are described in more factual terms as companies? These "interest groups" (actually it is two consumer groups) are not named until more than half-way through this article. The consumer voice is not heard until after the big companies are quoted about jobs, pensions and rural coverage, until after the position of the union representing the telecom workers is described, and until after a study is cited implying that federal policies are not needed because prices have been dropping since 2008. Then, the words "not everyone sees it that way" are used to introduce the Consumers Council of Canada quote, thereby implying that most people are in favour of the business-interest position. Doug McCall, Surrey, B.C. I agree that allowing non-Canadian companies to enter the market might be good for consumers, but as a shareholder I believe they must also build their own infrastructure and pay the same price for 700 megahertz frequencies. If the Harper government doesn't play fair, then I think the taxpayers will be on the hook when the Canadian telecoms sue and win. Gary Smart, Nanaimo, B.C. ON REFLECTION More Letters To The Editor Sochi's anti-gay Games Re Russian Homophobia Sparks Outrage In Ottawa (Aug. 2): I'm pleased Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has "deep concern" about Russia's anti-gay laws and the implications for the Sochi Games. An Olympic boycott won't happen, but there are things people can do. Unless you're an athlete, don't set foot on Russian soil. Russian vodka should be as unfashionable as South African wine during apartheid. And let's hear Mr. Baird say gay marriage - the law of our land - is a "good thing," not just to be tolerated, but celebrated. Stephen Hammond, Victoria Liberals 2; NDP 2; PC 1 Re Ontario NDP And Tories Say Bringing Down Liberals Is "Inevitable" (Aug. 2): I'm not sure why anyone is surprised at the by-election results, especially the Liberal win in Ottawa South, former premier Dalton McGuinty's old seat. Sure, the provincial Liberals had scandals a-plenty going into the by-elections. But then, in the last federal election, so did the Conservatives, including two contempt of Parliament rulings and it didn't prevent them from getting a majority. So why should it sink the Ontario Liberals? Jim Harris, Ottawa Saskatchewan's pain Re Away With Oligopoly (editorial, July 31): You describe the breakup of Belarus Potash Co. as "good news for consumers and farmers across the world." But there are other consequences: Resource revenues that support public services in Saskatchewan will be cut; expansion in the the potash industry that supports economic and job growth will slow. State-agency monopoly buyers will play one industry player off against another to cut prices. Your "good news" is speculative; the consequences for Saskatchewan are real. Dan Cameron, Regina Less whining, please Re Snowden Thanks Russia After Being Granted Temporary Asylum For One Year (Aug. 2): The U.S. needs to cut back on whining over Russia's decision. The Americans know the diplomatic game. Surely the U.S. has not forgotten the Russian spy ring it uncovered in 2010? It's payback time. Were events reversed, in that a Russian fled to the U.S. to avoid Russian "prosecution," I'm not sure the U.S. would be eager to turn him over. Or would it? Come to think of it, I don't know any more. Norman M. Ostonal, New Westminster, B.C.