The big telecom lobbying argument vs CRTC about how urban markets need to subsidize rural infrastructure costs is not something 95% of canadians like to hear, but it kinda makes sense (They say rural infra simply isn't cost effective because Canada is so expansive, but you expect high speed Internet access in your Muskoka cottage, right?)
Banking is kind of in a similar boat in the sense that it's an industry with economies of scale effect, so naturally there are going to be big players. Even smaller players like Tangerine need to make "big boy" investments like call centers. ICBC is another example of a bank that isn't the big 5 and yet has brick and mortar branches to serve a highly specific niche.
OpenBanking doesn't mean that TD et al somehow get to tighten the noose on smaller banks to their own advantage; it's actually on them to implement the APIs. If Tangerine can't keep up with other banks improving their technology, that's their own fault. What the whole thing means is that Plaid doesn't get to have root access to your banking.
For some groups (especially reservations where their location to practice independent governance is government mandated) I can absolutely sympathize - but for most of the rest of rural Canada - uh why? Urban centers like Toronto and Vancouver are already paying property taxes far exceeding rural areas - with the residents paying those taxes also being hit by bigger income tax proportions due to the higher wages in the cities.
There is no allowance for rural Canadians to get subsidized access to live operas and plays - choosing to live in a rural area comes with a general acceptance that those sorts of live performances are always going to be inconvenient and expensive since you'll need to travel to the city to get them. Why are we treating internet significantly different? If you choose to live in the middle of nowhere you can pay the actual cost for a company to maintain a line to your cabin in the woods while enjoying the scenery you're immersed in.
On Monday I've got a hookup guy coming to my place to switch our condo over from Telus to Novus - this will drop our price from 100G/$80 to 300G/$50 along with removing data limits and throttling and probably actually getting closer to the advertised rate (we often get about 15-20 down from Telus right now - I've heard much better things about Novus).
Part of the reason Novus can do this is indeed the fact that it doesn't offer service outside of very dense urban areas - and I'm personally quite okay with that.
I'd wager that Canada is still largely a wild west when it comes to physical copper coverage. Meaning big players do project long term profit from rural markets and actively invest in them, but that the projections aren't sustainable below some price threshold, hence butting heads with CRTC to make the math work out.
As for the notion that country bumpkins ought to be satisfied with inconvenience, I'm not sure how to respond other than more and more they expect modern things to be available to them. A customer is never in their right mind going to shoulder a 100k upfront cost to lay fiber to a town, so if someone wants to make the cost benefit analysis, it's most likely going to be one of the big players, IMHO
When competitors are stopped at the border for dubious pretexts it means that the local monopolies can effectively decide not to wire your property.
Wouldn't it be nice to see an ultra-competitive European carrier laying fiber out there?
That still doesn't explain why internet service is way more expensive in Canada than pretty much everywhere else in the world.
However, with that said, I saw numbers saying that laying one mile of fiber costs to the tune of $30k, so just connecting Winnipeg to Kenora would cost some $4M. Kenora itself has an area of 80 sq mi and a population of 15k people (though mostly concentrated near Lake of Woods). It's not nothing, but also not exactly a gold mine for telecoms, to be sure.
Timmins might be a better example. It's more than 400 miles north of Toronto, and has some 40k people. Sudbury is half way there and has some 160k people, but still some 250 miles away from Toronto. To give a sense of scale, the distance from Timmins to Toronto is bigger than the distance from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Berlin (Germany). 200k potential customers is a pretty decent size market (that's a quarter of San Francisco's population, for example), but covering 400 miles w/ fiber at $30k/mile just to reach it comes out to a cool $12M upfront investment. Don't forget this is just to connect two points, there's still last mile coverage and ongoing maintenance which is going to add quite a bit of cost on top. If a single competitor is there, that can cut into the profits pretty deeply.
That's the sort of math that telecoms need to deal with when doing ROI analyses on these markets.
https://www.rogers.com/mobility/network-coverage-map?icid=R_...
Most of my province (BC) is not covered. They cover the urban areas and some wider areas along highways in plateau regions. Where is this burdensome coverage that is keeping them expensive?
Canada with open banking: 5 big banks, impossible to compete.
What would a solution look like for you? Would it be that screen-scraping be banned and open banking APIs be encouraged but not mandated? Or mandated within X years for existing banks or within X years of establishing a new bank? Something else?
I lived in states. I banked in First bank of Fairmont ... yes, a city of 11,500 people had its own bank. I could not do ANYthing outside of city. This was a while back of course, but even today that the notion that there are over 5000 banks in USA (down from way over 10k), with complicated inter-state financing laws, from everything I can hear and understand from my USA friends and family, is discouraging both competition and functionality/convenience/sanity, and seems like we are constantly 5-10 years ahead in Canada with basics like Interac, PIN, Chip, Contactless, Interac email transfer, etc. Basically, USA banking system is as strange to me as their health / insurance system.
A bit like, I enjoyed it when Netflix was a monopoly and I could get anything I wanted there. I don't like the "competition" we have now with myriad streaming services that don't interoperate and have different systems and oh yes all want my money.
I guess I am curious: what should I be on the lookout, as a Canadian, that I am missing in our banking system compared to USA? What should I be hopeful a new entry would give me?
(and note, I am talking about banking sector for myself as ignorant consumer; telecom is a whole other ballgame for a myriad different reasons and I'll 100% agree is an area where we are lagging).
It would help if you specified a problem with the proposal or with the Advisory Committee on Open Banking in particular. If you can't, then a guess of "Canada's banks are upset about competition" is a really exaggerated immediate post.
The reason I've soured on it is that it's not that bloody open at all. It should be called 'InteroperableBanking' or something.
Edit: I see this is a losing battle, the comments responding to the parent seem to imply that he is championing open banking against a group that disagree with it. And the replies to me think that I don't want open banking. Enjoy your discussion