http://www.fiercewireless.com/story...dish-about-any-deals/2014-05-20#ixzz32GnzeUg6 Why 3 players mean less competition and more profits for the 3 players: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-softbank-son-oligopoly-20140423,0,2375556.story Japan attack on wireless 'oligopoly' awkward for SoftBank's U.S. plans Canadian regulators probably say the same thing since its market is another classic example of three-company oligopoly. High prices for customers and high profits for the 3 dominant carriers (Telus, Rogers and Bell). No actual competition = higher profits. An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers (oligopolists). Oligopolies can result from various forms of collusion which reduce competition and lead to higher prices for consumers. With few sellers, each oligopolist is likely to be aware of the actions of the others. The decisions of one firm therefore influence and are influenced by the decisions of other firms.Strategic planning by oligopolists needs to take into account the likely responses of the other market participants. Example of three-company oligopoly from Canada http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/carriers/rogers-telus-bell-price-hikes/ March 17th, 2014 Nothing the government can do about it since they can't prove that these 3 companies colluded together to bring about this $5 price hike. Tacit collusion at its best. Manitoba and Saskatchewan are two provinces in Canada where these 3 carriers didn't raise the $5/month. That is because that these 2 provinces has strong regional competitors in SaskTel and MTS. Raising the $5 will make these 3 national carriers less competitive there.