$32,090 x 0.086 = $2,759/year ($230/mo) $130,000 x 0.017 = $2,210/year ($184/mo) Why are lower income households spending so much more on communications? Feels like this would be a better angle to...
The snapshot of expenditures shows households with incomes below $32,090 spent 8.6 per cent of what they earned in 2016 on communications.
$32,090 x 0.086 = $2,759/year ($230/mo)
That compares to just 1.7 per cent of income for households earning above $130,000.
$130,000 x 0.017 = $2,210/year ($184/mo)
Why are lower income households spending so much more on communications? Feels like this would be a better angle to investigate than looking at percentages.
This is actually the part I'm trying to find a better source on, because I'm pretty sure it's because of the price of devices. Lower income households are not able to purchase their phones, cable...
This is actually the part I'm trying to find a better source on, because I'm pretty sure it's because of the price of devices. Lower income households are not able to purchase their phones, cable boxes, whatever, outright, so the payment/rental of those devices are rolled into the cost of communications.
Maybe to a lesser extent, it maybe because of corporate breaks. Some telecoms have deals for employees of certain companies.
Also another possibility is overage charges. If you go over data on your mobile, you're charged per 100MB, so if you can only afford a lower tier data plan, you may just be going over more often.
Communication prices can also differ quite a bit on province, so I'll really need a much more explicit break down, but in Alberta at least, $184/mo is stupid cheap.
In Europe, unless you specifically buy more data (usually send sms or call), you have unlimited additional data, slowed down to approximately 50kB/s. Is this option even available in Canada? Or is...
If you go over data on your mobile, you're charged per 100MB
In Europe, unless you specifically buy more data (usually send sms or call), you have unlimited additional data, slowed down to approximately 50kB/s.
Is this option even available in Canada? Or is there different mentality so more people actually buy additional data?
It really depends on how you're set up, but generally the telecoms will just let you go over and charge you. This was a really big deal a few years ago when some people were charged thousands in...
It really depends on how you're set up, but generally the telecoms will just let you go over and charge you. This was a really big deal a few years ago when some people were charged thousands in overages. Some laws are in place now, but I'm not totally sure how they work. Accidentally getting charged a hundred bucks is not particularly crazy still. Most people I know, set a limit on their device itself. You can also call in and have your telecomm disable the ability to go over completely, I believe. When roaming, I do get an sms message, but I'm not sure if it's because I set it to never roam.
Your numbers are going to be off here because you're using the maximum income value for the poor bracket and the minimum income value for the rich bracket. Using the average incomes for these two...
Your numbers are going to be off here because you're using the maximum income value for the poor bracket and the minimum income value for the rich bracket.
Using the average incomes for these two groups would bring the monthly values closer together.
That crossed my mind. It would also be more helpful to know how many households there are under $32k and how many above $130k, among other details. It's hard to come to any real conclusions based...
That crossed my mind. It would also be more helpful to know how many households there are under $32k and how many above $130k, among other details. It's hard to come to any real conclusions based on the limited information in the article.
Additional source (that may be behind a paywall): CRTC report says low-income Canadians spending ‘absurd’ amount on telecom services. Still looking for the source (though the numbers are sort of...
Still looking for the source (though the numbers are sort of in the articles), but on average, low-income households spend less on communication services (as low as a third of average/high income households), but it makes up a significant portion of their income.
Tbh you can say the same about most monthly expenses. Food. Childcare. Utilities. Housing. Lower income = smaller denominator = higher portion. That's how percentages work. Not really sure this...
Tbh you can say the same about most monthly expenses. Food. Childcare. Utilities. Housing.
Lower income = smaller denominator = higher portion. That's how percentages work. Not really sure this article is saying anything profound---especially because communications services tend to have a price floor.
It's important to have these numbers. Communication services are not explicitly considered necessities, though a lot of social programs do recognize that they are. Hopefully this report will drive...
It's important to have these numbers. Communication services are not explicitly considered necessities, though a lot of social programs do recognize that they are. Hopefully this report will drive some change in the areas that need it.
Edit to add: 9% is really high. For comparison, low-income housing costs is about $650 - $1000 or roughly ~25% - 35% (variation depending on city and a billion other factors).
That's my issue with how things are. Internet isn't seen as a utility, but it absolutely is in today's society. It is too much of an asset to have internet deserts like we do here in the US. I am...
That's my issue with how things are. Internet isn't seen as a utility, but it absolutely is in today's society. It is too much of an asset to have internet deserts like we do here in the US. I am in the middle of the US and live and work in a city that is an IXP and we have a honey comb of smaller towns around and areas of those towns with zero internet despite it being a mile away in another neighborhood. The thing about where I am is, if you don't have internet by now in your area, you never will. Because all money goes into upgrading things for people who already have it.
The reason I bought my house where I did last year was because the big ISP lied to me about coverage on a couple lots I bought. I have to have internet for work and they told me they covered my lots when I bought them, but they don't. It is true though, they are on their coverage map, but that is just so they have rights to the area.
My house is on the West side of the city in a more quiet rural part people tend to overlook when buying houses. It's in a great location. Six minutes from downtown, 8-10 from this great shopping / eating district we have, quick access to one of the main highways, in another direction is a shopping center. I really like it, but I still feel bad for all of those people who don't have internet. People come down on them hard too. Just get satellite internet! Satellite internet just doesn't cut it for every day use and when you bring that up people come back with, Well my vacation cabin that I live in one weekend out of the year gets good service! Yeah, but that's two days out of the year. You wouldn't put up with living like that day to day and you know it.
And people love to say, "Well it cost money to run lines and all of this is just to expensive." Two things bother me about that mindset. First, if that is the case, then internet should have never been brought in to begin with. By that logic, the people who have internet should have never gotten it because it was just too darn expensive. So why was it different when THEY were getting it, why wasn't the cost to great then? The second issue is, people say this WHILE their lines are being upgraded and fiber ran when they already get the fastest speeds in the city..
Just south of me is there real rural area you would never think had internet, but they do. But it's a real odd area. Just big mansions kind of tucked off in the southwest most part of the city isolated away from everything. Big rolling hills and the whole area is 80% undeveloped. But to be fair, this is just West of a major shopping center. But it is still the distance some people without internet are from people who do and the type of area it is and how it is so far West you'd never think they had internet until you drove through and saw the ISP owned power boxes.
And another major issue I have is, they won't let anyone run lines unless it is for a MAJOR development. People without internet aren't allowed to get together, run lines and set up the hardware, and work with the ISP to get it.
This ran long, but as someone who has to have internet for work and knowing how not having it limits so many peoples' opportunities bothers me. Kids don't have as many resources to learn, adults have less work options, etc.
Definitely. And everything costs extra. People tend to look and see that there's the cheapest plan available for mobile or Internet, and don't admit that you can't actually use those. For example,...
Internet isn't seen as a utility, but it absolutely is in today's society.
Definitely. And everything costs extra. People tend to look and see that there's the cheapest plan available for mobile or Internet, and don't admit that you can't actually use those. For example, we have $35/mo talk and "unlimited" data mobile plans. I tried one for a while, but kept missing calls, having dropped calls, and such and had to abandon it. I also had to pay $10 for voicemail (which I only enabled when I was looking for work). The lowest tier Internet is not usable in today's world.
True, I get what you're saying. I don't know enough about Canada and what options are available there. Is the $223/mo average figure close to the industry's price floor? Here in America, a lot of...
True, I get what you're saying. I don't know enough about Canada and what options are available there. Is the $223/mo average figure close to the industry's price floor?
Here in America, a lot of my peers spend $300/mo to $400/mo on some kind of cable TV/internet/mobile plan combination, but by shopping around and doing some modest research, I'm currently paying $40/mo (mobile) + $50/mo (internet) + $20/mo (Netflix and Hulu, no cable TV) = $110/mo for two people.
Would be hard to go lower though. If $300/mo was as low as I could go, then yeah, that would be a problem. Is that kind of what the article is implying for Canada?
A lot of sources are saying the average cost for Internet is $65 for Canadians. There must be some super cheap services somewhere that's pulling down the average, because here in Alberta at least,...
A lot of sources are saying the average cost for Internet is $65 for Canadians. There must be some super cheap services somewhere that's pulling down the average, because here in Alberta at least, it'll be really hard to get anything for that price. The lowest tier for casual browsing on Shaw is about $80 + $35*2 (for a pair of phones) + fees ~= $165, which you'll still have to add your Netflix and such onto (though at this tier, you can't really stream). Cost of devices have not yet been added.
Edit to add: We game, so our household comm cost is more than $350.
$32,090 x 0.086 = $2,759/year ($230/mo)
$130,000 x 0.017 = $2,210/year ($184/mo)
Why are lower income households spending so much more on communications? Feels like this would be a better angle to investigate than looking at percentages.
This is actually the part I'm trying to find a better source on, because I'm pretty sure it's because of the price of devices. Lower income households are not able to purchase their phones, cable boxes, whatever, outright, so the payment/rental of those devices are rolled into the cost of communications.
Maybe to a lesser extent, it maybe because of corporate breaks. Some telecoms have deals for employees of certain companies.
Also another possibility is overage charges. If you go over data on your mobile, you're charged per 100MB, so if you can only afford a lower tier data plan, you may just be going over more often.
Communication prices can also differ quite a bit on province, so I'll really need a much more explicit break down, but in Alberta at least, $184/mo is stupid cheap.
In Europe, unless you specifically buy more data (usually send sms or call), you have unlimited additional data, slowed down to approximately 50kB/s.
Is this option even available in Canada? Or is there different mentality so more people actually buy additional data?
It really depends on how you're set up, but generally the telecoms will just let you go over and charge you. This was a really big deal a few years ago when some people were charged thousands in overages. Some laws are in place now, but I'm not totally sure how they work. Accidentally getting charged a hundred bucks is not particularly crazy still. Most people I know, set a limit on their device itself. You can also call in and have your telecomm disable the ability to go over completely, I believe. When roaming, I do get an sms message, but I'm not sure if it's because I set it to never roam.
Your numbers are going to be off here because you're using the maximum income value for the poor bracket and the minimum income value for the rich bracket.
Using the average incomes for these two groups would bring the monthly values closer together.
That crossed my mind. It would also be more helpful to know how many households there are under $32k and how many above $130k, among other details. It's hard to come to any real conclusions based on the limited information in the article.
Additional source (that may be behind a paywall): CRTC report says low-income Canadians spending ‘absurd’ amount on telecom services.
Still looking for the source (though the numbers are sort of in the articles), but on average, low-income households spend less on communication services (as low as a third of average/high income households), but it makes up a significant portion of their income.
Tbh you can say the same about most monthly expenses. Food. Childcare. Utilities. Housing.
Lower income = smaller denominator = higher portion. That's how percentages work. Not really sure this article is saying anything profound---especially because communications services tend to have a price floor.
It's important to have these numbers. Communication services are not explicitly considered necessities, though a lot of social programs do recognize that they are. Hopefully this report will drive some change in the areas that need it.
Edit to add: 9% is really high. For comparison, low-income housing costs is about $650 - $1000 or roughly ~25% - 35% (variation depending on city and a billion other factors).
That's my issue with how things are. Internet isn't seen as a utility, but it absolutely is in today's society. It is too much of an asset to have internet deserts like we do here in the US. I am in the middle of the US and live and work in a city that is an IXP and we have a honey comb of smaller towns around and areas of those towns with zero internet despite it being a mile away in another neighborhood. The thing about where I am is, if you don't have internet by now in your area, you never will. Because all money goes into upgrading things for people who already have it.
The reason I bought my house where I did last year was because the big ISP lied to me about coverage on a couple lots I bought. I have to have internet for work and they told me they covered my lots when I bought them, but they don't. It is true though, they are on their coverage map, but that is just so they have rights to the area.
My house is on the West side of the city in a more quiet rural part people tend to overlook when buying houses. It's in a great location. Six minutes from downtown, 8-10 from this great shopping / eating district we have, quick access to one of the main highways, in another direction is a shopping center. I really like it, but I still feel bad for all of those people who don't have internet. People come down on them hard too. Just get satellite internet! Satellite internet just doesn't cut it for every day use and when you bring that up people come back with, Well my vacation cabin that I live in one weekend out of the year gets good service! Yeah, but that's two days out of the year. You wouldn't put up with living like that day to day and you know it.
And people love to say, "Well it cost money to run lines and all of this is just to expensive." Two things bother me about that mindset. First, if that is the case, then internet should have never been brought in to begin with. By that logic, the people who have internet should have never gotten it because it was just too darn expensive. So why was it different when THEY were getting it, why wasn't the cost to great then? The second issue is, people say this WHILE their lines are being upgraded and fiber ran when they already get the fastest speeds in the city..
Just south of me is there real rural area you would never think had internet, but they do. But it's a real odd area. Just big mansions kind of tucked off in the southwest most part of the city isolated away from everything. Big rolling hills and the whole area is 80% undeveloped. But to be fair, this is just West of a major shopping center. But it is still the distance some people without internet are from people who do and the type of area it is and how it is so far West you'd never think they had internet until you drove through and saw the ISP owned power boxes.
And another major issue I have is, they won't let anyone run lines unless it is for a MAJOR development. People without internet aren't allowed to get together, run lines and set up the hardware, and work with the ISP to get it.
This ran long, but as someone who has to have internet for work and knowing how not having it limits so many peoples' opportunities bothers me. Kids don't have as many resources to learn, adults have less work options, etc.
Definitely. And everything costs extra. People tend to look and see that there's the cheapest plan available for mobile or Internet, and don't admit that you can't actually use those. For example, we have $35/mo talk and "unlimited" data mobile plans. I tried one for a while, but kept missing calls, having dropped calls, and such and had to abandon it. I also had to pay $10 for voicemail (which I only enabled when I was looking for work). The lowest tier Internet is not usable in today's world.
It definitely absolutely is not.
True, I get what you're saying. I don't know enough about Canada and what options are available there. Is the $223/mo average figure close to the industry's price floor?
Here in America, a lot of my peers spend $300/mo to $400/mo on some kind of cable TV/internet/mobile plan combination, but by shopping around and doing some modest research, I'm currently paying $40/mo (mobile) + $50/mo (internet) + $20/mo (Netflix and Hulu, no cable TV) = $110/mo for two people.
Would be hard to go lower though. If $300/mo was as low as I could go, then yeah, that would be a problem. Is that kind of what the article is implying for Canada?
A lot of sources are saying the average cost for Internet is $65 for Canadians. There must be some super cheap services somewhere that's pulling down the average, because here in Alberta at least, it'll be really hard to get anything for that price. The lowest tier for casual browsing on Shaw is about $80 + $35*2 (for a pair of phones) + fees ~= $165, which you'll still have to add your Netflix and such onto (though at this tier, you can't really stream). Cost of devices have not yet been added.
Edit to add: We game, so our household comm cost is more than $350.