Of course we do, but the regulatory barriers in the US are most certainly higher.
Furthermore, while taxes are slightly higher in Canada, the savings for businesses in terms of reduced costs for benefits (healthcare, pension, etc.) makes doing business plus lower wages makes the cost of oding business here cheaper.
Actually, both cellphones and landlines are more expensive over there than they are here (in canada at least). Many people (households) do still use landlines, however part of the reason cell phones are so popular is that they're about half the price (in terms of service charges) of landlines.
Of course, Japan does have insane population density, but it also needs a buttload of cell capacity to support the huge numbers of users. (There is also _fierce_ competition between half a dozen cell providers.)
That's true of very remote places, but I'm living in a town of 70k about an hour's drive from Toronto. (Guelph).
Guelph is not rural, but not densely urban either. However, I pay as much or as little as any other DSL subscriber in southern ontario.
Broadband is not subsidised around here, but there is competition. _Capitalist_ _competition_! The market, remember that thing?
The reason we have this competition is because our regulatory environment is, dare I say it, better than that of the US. You should blame Mr. Powel Jr. and the FCC if you think your broadband prices are too high.
Around here, as in most major canadian centres, there is good competition between the phone company (DSL) and cable. I'm paying 35$cdn/month for DSL without any monthly limits. (You can pay more if you want the faster connection, which some of my gamers tend to use.) Cable is equally cheap, but only if you also buy cable TV from the company - otherwise you pay a bit more.
The high stock price can be partly attributed to the fact that the investing world is only now starting to understand that SCOX is full of it.
If you've read groklaw at all, you'll notice two things. One, that most of what SCO has been doing, in and out of the court, indicates that they are goign to lose bigtime. This includes debunking much of their claims, when they even bother to make any. The other thing you'll notice is that many readers complain about how the investing press seems to think SCO is going to win this and make piles of cash.
The second factor, however, is significant. I was thinking about short selling SCO's stock, however after reading a little bit about shorting and looking at the numbers, i decided not to. Why? I still think SCO is going to (eventually) tank when IBM bitchslaps them down, however it seems a lot of other people are betting on this.
According to fortune's stock quotes, SCO has 13.8M shares outstanding, with short interest at 2,057,561. That's a short interest of almost 15%, which is HIGH. (A "normal" short interest is usually no more than 2-3%.) So, there is a significant portion of the investing world that things SCOX is going to tank.
The problem, though, is that high short interest actually helps keep the price up. Why? Well, remember that shorting is 'sell high, buy low', in that order. When you short a stock, you 'sell' it, agreeing to buy it again in the future, with the expectation that it will go down. When a lot of people do this, however, the market reacts with an increased price, because the market knows that a lot of people are now obligated to buy it - in other words, demand for the stock is high. This is why it is dangerous to short a stock that everybody else is shorting.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course we do, but the regulatory barriers in the US are most certainly higher.
Furthermore, while taxes are slightly higher in Canada, the savings for businesses in terms of reduced costs for benefits (healthcare, pension, etc.) makes doing business plus lower wages makes the cost of oding business here cheaper.
Buzzword for the day: "inshoring".
It's pretty well understood that north american cell service is pretty crappy compared to europe, japan, and israel, to name a few.
I was blown away at the cell service in japan. Even two years later, it generally still sucks around here.
Oh, I forgot to mention the tokyo landline thing.
Actually, both cellphones and landlines are more expensive over there than they are here (in canada at least). Many people (households) do still use landlines, however part of the reason cell phones are so popular is that they're about half the price (in terms of service charges) of landlines.
Of course, Japan does have insane population density, but it also needs a buttload of cell capacity to support the huge numbers of users. (There is also _fierce_ competition between half a dozen cell providers.)
That's true of very remote places, but I'm living in a town of 70k about an hour's drive from Toronto. (Guelph).
Guelph is not rural, but not densely urban either. However, I pay as much or as little as any other DSL subscriber in southern ontario.
Broadband is not subsidised around here, but there is competition. _Capitalist_ _competition_! The market, remember that thing?
The reason we have this competition is because our regulatory environment is, dare I say it, better than that of the US. You should blame Mr. Powel Jr. and the FCC if you think your broadband prices are too high.
I guess that explains why broadband is cheaper in Canada too..
FYI, a plain ol' landline phone in Tokyo is _absurdly_ expensive.
Around here, as in most major canadian centres, there is good competition between the phone company (DSL) and cable. I'm paying 35$cdn/month for DSL without any monthly limits. (You can pay more if you want the faster connection, which some of my gamers tend to use.) Cable is equally cheap, but only if you also buy cable TV from the company - otherwise you pay a bit more.
How much does it cost in the US?
The high stock price can be partly attributed to the fact that the investing world is only now starting to understand that SCOX is full of it.
If you've read groklaw at all, you'll notice two things. One, that most of what SCO has been doing, in and out of the court, indicates that they are goign to lose bigtime. This includes debunking much of their claims, when they even bother to make any. The other thing you'll notice is that many readers complain about how the investing press seems to think SCO is going to win this and make piles of cash.
The second factor, however, is significant. I was thinking about short selling SCO's stock, however after reading a little bit about shorting and looking at the numbers, i decided not to. Why? I still think SCO is going to (eventually) tank when IBM bitchslaps them down, however it seems a lot of other people are betting on this.
According to fortune's stock quotes, SCO has 13.8M shares outstanding, with short interest at 2,057,561. That's a short interest of almost 15%, which is HIGH. (A "normal" short interest is usually no more than 2-3%.) So, there is a significant portion of the investing world that things SCOX is going to tank.
The problem, though, is that high short interest actually helps keep the price up. Why? Well, remember that shorting is 'sell high, buy low', in that order. When you short a stock, you 'sell' it, agreeing to buy it again in the future, with the expectation that it will go down. When a lot of people do this, however, the market reacts with an increased price, because the market knows that a lot of people are now obligated to buy it - in other words, demand for the stock is high. This is why it is dangerous to short a stock that everybody else is shorting.