August 10, 2025Welcome to Letters from CAMP, a newsletter on anti-monopoly activity in Canada and abroad, brought to you by the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project. In this instalment we have:
If you enjoy Letters, please considering sharing and supporting CAMP Now let’s dive in.
What’s a Little Infrastructure Sharing Among Friends?After another round of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC’s) wholesale access saga, the federal cabinet has ruled that Canada’s major telecom incumbents will be able to use the infrastructure of their equally sized rivals going forward. Here’s what that might mean for you: consumers in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and the East Coast will continue to see Telus offering home internet services using Rogers’ and Bell’s lines bundled with mobile and other services. Shoppers in the western provinces may soon see Bell do the same in Telus’ home territory. Rogers is the odd man out because the rules mean that telecoms can’t use the infrastructure of competitors where they already have their own. More competition sounds good. But the question remains what companies actually need regulated access to compete. The real losers of this decision are likely the independent ISPs that have long offered distinct services. Without the ability to offer mobile services, they will struggle to compete for customers. Consumers may see better bundles, but with fewer competitors prices and offerings often converge. The key issue is now the final wholesale rates set by the CRTC. These rates are what access-seekers pay the network owner to reach households in the region. If the rates are low, independents can compete profitability. If the rates are high, independents will take another hit. Current rates have driven many independents out of the market, often via acquisition by incumbent. If the CRTC finally sets fair rates, this week’s decision could be seen as a clear win for Canadians. But so long as the system undervalues independents, Canada will continue moving toward oligopoly. 📰 CAMP in the News 📰
Evidence Mounts on Collusive Potential of Algo PricingLast week, we shared with you CAMP’s response to the Competition Bureau’s call for information on the topic of algorithmic pricing and its potential to facilitate collusion at the expense of consumers. Our message was clear: as landlords, retailers and other firms adopt automated pricing tools, regulation should prevent them from fixing prices by proxy, coordinating through reinforcement learning, or engaging in tacit collusion. Turns out we had pretty good timing. A recent NBER study found that in simulations, algorithms often settle on collusive strategies that generate higher profits than competition would. This shows the need to understand how these tools are used, what their possible outcomes are, and act accordingly. If the stated goal is to increase margins, there is a risk of killing competition that benefits consumers. This matters in the grocery aisle and the rental market as Canadians are squeezed to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. Changes in how competition occurs require change in the laws that protect it. A study finding that collusion can occur without agreement, communication, or intent presents a challenge for competition law. Law written with smoky backrooms in mind must be updated to protect competition in a world where competitors could be colluding without realizing it. The Competition Bureau should be able to audit pricing algorithms for collusive potential and provinces should move to ban the use of the tools in markets where Canadians are particularly vulnerable. Canadians have put up with enough old-fashioned cartels. They should not have to face a new wave of them. 📚 What We’re Reading 📚
Uber Puts Exploiting Labour Above Rider SafetyOver a decade ago, Uber came on the scene with a new kind of strategy. Rather than follow market norms, it would instead disrupt them, aggressively subverting regulations and displacing older models. After years of undercutting competition and running up losses, Uber is comfortably on top of the rideshare market, and began to turn a profit for the first time in 2023. Like Google, Uber’s dominance is clear now that its name has become a verb for hiring a driver. But when competition relies on skirting the law, as in Uber’s refusal to treat drivers as employees, it can have serious side effects. As the New York Times shows this week, in dealing with the problem of sexual assault on its platform, Uber decided not to pursue actions that would have kept riders safe. The reason? Doing so would have made it harder for the company to argue that drivers were contractors instead of employees. In-car cameras reduced assaults, but each new driver requirement weaken’s Uber contractor argument. CAMP supports competition, but not when it erodes labour and safety standards. Not every law is beneficial, but companies cannot pick and choose which laws they feel like following. There are fair and unfair ways to compete. When lawbreaking becomes the norm, law-abiding companies are punished. Uber broke a monopoly that constrained ride hailing, but the cost of extending its break-the-rules approach to other areas of law are now in clear view. If you have any monopoly tips or stories you’d like to share, drop us a line at hello@antimonopoly.ca
Follow CAMP on Twitter LinkedIn Instagram or Facebook |
Subscribe to our Enewsletter
Stay up to date on CAMP’s latest news, work and opportunities to get involved.
By subscribing, you consent to our Privacy Policy and to receive communications. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Stay Connected
Donate
Your contribution supports CAMP’s efforts to create a more democratic economy that works for all Canadians.