Action Needed to End Telecom Price Gouging

Being connected to the internet is more essential now than it has ever been, particularly in today’s interconnected world, yet Canadians face some of the highest telecom prices around the globe. The cost of accessing telecommunications and internet services places a significant burden on families, businesses, and individuals alike. This burden falls especially hard on rural and Indigenous communities, who have long struggled with exorbitant costs for vital services like internet and mobile connectivity. Many Indigenous communities still lack reliable, high-speed internet—a barrier that stifles education, economic opportunity, digital literacy, and even cultural revitalization. For these communities, affordable and dependable telecom services are not a luxury but a necessity.

Rogers Communications, one of Canada’s largest telecom providers, recently raised service costs without warning, even for customers with locked-in contracts. Using a clause hidden within many customers’ contracts, Rogers hiked fees on equipment rentals like TV boxes and modems. Signing a contract usually means stable, expected billing, but Rogers’ actions show how telecom giants can exploit loopholes to increase profits. Mergers and reduced competition were supposed to bring Canadians better prices, according to Rogers, yet they have led to higher costs and fewer choices.

At the core of this issue is the lack of competition in Canada’s telecom industry, which allows a handful of large companies to control the market and dictate price. For Canadians, fewer choices of telecom providers mean higher prices for services. Last year’s merger between Rogers and Shaw Communication is a prime example of how corporate consolidation only worsens this problem. When the government approved this merger, they placed certain "conditions" on it to supposedly protect consumers. These included promises from Rogers to invest in expanding its network, maintain jobs, and freeze prices for Shaw customers for five years. However, these were widely criticized as ineffective, and today we see why. The merger hasn’t improved competition or lowered prices for Canadians. Instead, it has consolidated market power in fewer hands. The Competition Bureau, which tried to block the merger, raised serious concerns that such consolidation would inevitably lead to higher costs and fewer choices. Unfortunately, the government allowed it to proceed, and Canadians are now paying the price.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) also stood firmly against this merger, urging the government to reject it. Similarly, the non-profit advocacy organization OpenMedia was strongly opposed, launching petitions and campaigns to raise awareness about the harms of reduced competition. They warned that the merger would drive up costs and leave Canadians with even fewer choices. But their warnings went unheeded. The result? A monopoly that has hit Canadians hard—especially those in rural and underserved communities, where options were already limited.

Adding to Canadians’ frustration is that the government awarded Rogers over $165 million in federal contracts in the past two years alone, despite the company's pricing practices that have negatively impacted Canadians. This raises serious questions about the government's priorities and its commitment to protecting consumers from corporate exploitation. Why should a company that exploits its market position to overcharge Canadians benefit from taxpayer dollars? Companies that exploit consumers shouldn’t receive lucrative federal contracts. Those contracts should be awarded only to companies that demonstrate fair pricing and consumer respect. This would not only protect public funds from being directed to corporations that fail to prioritize fair treatment for consumers but would also send a clear message that abusing their dominant market position to exploit consumers is unacceptable.

It’s also high time the government established mandatory low-cost internet and cellular plans to ensure that every Canadian can afford connectivity, regardless of income or location. In the United States, the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) offers monthly discounts for low-income households, and Finland made broadband access a legal right over a decade ago, requiring providers to offer affordable, high-speed internet even in rural areas. If these countries have implemented similar programs —so why hasn’t ours?

It’s essential to prioritize the well-being of Canadians over corporate profits. Let’s make telecom fair, accessible, and affordable for everyone—because no one should be forced to choose between staying connected and making ends meet. Addressing the price gouging by telecom giants is about ensuring equal opportunity and protecting every Canadian’s right to stay connected without the burden of excessive costs.