Canada’s Telecom Oligopoly: Why Your Phone Bill Is Still the Highest in the G7

In just six months, Canadians filed 19,157 complaints against their telecom providers—a 61% jump from the same period the year before, according to the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services. This surge comes even as the federal government declares it has delivered on a promise to reduce cellphone plan prices by 25 percent, as tracked by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. The two statistics sit at odds: prices are down, yet consumer frustration is up. The data force a closer look at whether the government's headline achievement actually reflects reality for most Canadians—or whether the oligopoly that controls nearly 90% of the mobile market has simply found new ways to squeeze its customers.

The Oligopoly's Iron Grip: Three Companies Own the Market

Canada's telecom market is among the most concentrated in the developed world. According to Statista, Rogers, Bell, and Telus together control roughly 90 percent of retail mobile revenue. Rogers alone holds about 35 percent, Bell 32 percent, and Telus 23 percent—leaving a handful of smaller players fighting for scraps. That dominance has persisted for years: Statista's historical data shows the combined share of the big three has remained above 85% since at least 2014, with the 'Others' category—including regional carriers and mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)—hovering near 10% in 2024.

This triumvirate gives them pricing power that leads to the highest mobile bills in the G7, as documented by CBC News. "Canada's wireless prices are among the highest in the developed world," the report noted, citing a lack of competition as the primary driver. The CBC Marketplace investigation found that Canadians pay an average of C$101 per month for a mid-range plan, compared to C$50 in Australia and C$45 in the United Kingdom. That gap persists even after the government's heralded price reduction. The big three also own discount flanker brands—Fido (Rogers), Koodo (Telus), and Virgin Plus (Bell)—which effectively extend their reach into the value segment, limiting the competitive threat from independent providers. The consequences of this concentration go beyond high prices. The CBC investigation noted that the lack of competition also stifles innovation and service quality. When dominant players face little pressure to improve, customer service and billing transparency can suffer—a dynamic that may help explain the complaint surge detailed below.

Complaints Surge: A 61% Spike in Six Months

The latest mid-year report from the CCTS paints a grim picture of consumer dissatisfaction. Between August 2025 and January 2026, the watchdog accepted 19,157 complaints—a 61 percent increase over the same period the previous year. The previous full year had already seen a 38 percent jump, according to a Globe and Mail analysis. Rogers was the most complained-about provider, accounting for nearly a quarter (25 percent) of all complaints, while Telus saw the greatest year-over-year increase. "It's concerning to see complaint volumes continue to rise at this pace," said Howard Maker, Commissioner of the CCTS, in a statement accompanying the mid-year report. He noted that 56 percent of complaints were about wireless services, with billing errors and rate plan disputes topping the list. The CCTS release further detailed that the top specific issues were charges not authorized, incorrect bill amounts, and plan changes without consent.

The Globe and Mail article, published in January 2025, provided an earlier snapshot: complaints rose 38% year-over-year for the full year ending in July 2025. That trend has now accelerated dramatically in the six months covered by the mid-year report. The acceleration suggests that whatever pricing relief consumers have seen has not translated into better treatment. Instead, it may reflect the complexity of modern telecom pricing—with promotional rates expiring, hidden fees, and sudden price increases driving frustrated customers to the complaint system.

The Government's 25% Promise: Fact or Spin?

In 2020, the federal government challenged the big three to reduce cellphone plan prices by 25 percent within two years. By 2024, ISED declared the target met, reporting that the average price of a 2GB plan had fallen 27.6 percent. A 4GB plan was down 24.8 percent. On paper, it looks like a win. But critics argue the benchmark was too narrow and the data too selective. "The 25 percent reduction is based on a small slice of the market—entry-level or limited-data plans," said Laura Tribe, executive director of OpenMedia, a digital rights advocacy group. "Most Canadians are on mid-range or unlimited data plans that haven't seen the same drop."

Indeed, the CBC Marketplace comparison found that even after the reductions, Canadian mid-range plans were still among the most expensive in the OECD. The government's tracking methodology, as detailed on the ISED website, focuses on a basket of plans from the three incumbents: 2GB, 4GB, and 6GB plans with unlimited talk and text. But these are typically entry-level or low-end offerings. Plans with 10GB or more, which many Canadians now use, are not explicitly tracked in the same way. Moreover, the 25% target was measured from a 2020 baseline, a year when prices were already high after years of increases. Critics point out that the reduction may partly reflect the natural cycle of new plan offerings rather than a structural change driven by competition. The government's own price tracking shows continued decreases, but the data do not capture the full consumer experience. The ISED page notes that prices are monitored using publicly available plans on provider websites. It does not include promotional plans that expire after a year or two, nor does it account for the fact that many customers remain on older, more expensive plans. The disconnect between the government's macro-level numbers and the 61% complaint surge suggests that while new customers may benefit from lower advertised prices, existing customers are facing shock as their promotional credits end or as plans change without notice.

Wholesale Access: Modest Gains, Persistent Dominance

To spur competition, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) introduced a wholesale access framework for fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP) internet, forcing incumbents to share their networks with smaller rivals. A study by NERA Economic Consulting examined the price effects and found modest declines: 8 percent for high-speed internet in Ontario and 11 percent in Quebec. "The wholesale access policy has led to statistically significant but modest price reductions," said Dr. Christian Dippon, a managing director at NERA and lead author of the study. However, he cautioned that the gains are concentrated in regions where competitors have actively used the framework. In other provinces, prices barely budged. The study, released in September 2025, analyzed prices before and after the CRTC's 2023 decision, using a difference-in-differences approach. It found that the framework did not significantly affect prices in Atlantic Canada, the Prairies, or British Columbia. Moreover, the study focused only on internet, not wireless. For mobile, the oligopoly's grip remains tight. Smaller providers like Videotron and Freedom Mobile have made inroads in a few markets, but their market share remains in the single digits nationally. The Statista data shows that the 'Others' category—including regional players and MVNOs—barely touched 10 percent in 2024. The wholesale framework has yet to produce a serious independent competitor in wireless, partly because the CRTC's mobile virtual network operator policy remains less aggressive than in other countries. While the government has threatened to impose lower wholesale rates, the big three continue to dominate. The NERA study's findings underscore a broader truth: even targeted regulatory interventions produce only marginal gains in a market this concentrated. The 8-11% price drops are welcome, but they pale in comparison to the 25% reduction claimed for wireless plans—a reduction that, as noted, is itself subject to debate. And those gains are unevenly distributed, meaning many Canadians see no benefit at all.

Conclusion: The Price of an Oligopoly

The government's 25 percent price reduction is a notable achievement, but it has not fundamentally altered Canada's telecom landscape. Complaints are soaring—up 61% in just six months—market concentration remains extreme, and wholesale access has delivered only modest, regionally concentrated gains. As consumers face rising bills and frustrating service, the question lingers: can any policy truly break the oligopoly's hold, or are Canadians destined to keep paying the highest prices in the G7? The evidence from the CCTS, the NERA study, and consumer advocates suggests that the underlying problem is structural. Without a meaningful competitor that can challenge the big three on a national scale—backed by robust wholesale access and a regulator willing to enforce conditions—the market will continue to generate high profits for incumbents and high frustration for Canadians. The 25% promise, while real for a subset of plans, has done little to alter the power dynamics that drive complaints. Until those dynamics change, the gap between government rhetoric and consumer reality will remain wide.