The points were uninformed The price was set using a 30% markup on costs not just assigned at random. If you notice BCE had lower costs than Telus or Sasktel.
Allowing others to use the networks is the problem not the price because the idea was to maintain a foothold in the household for bundles because bundled customers are less likely to churn.
the company is profitable making 8 Billion per year in operating cash flow and 10B per year in EBITDA.
I(nterest) =2B
T(ax) =1B
leaving 7B from which 4B dividend is paid.
leaving 3B for capital reinvestment. however the telco accelerated the fiber roll out (why Canada is so much better coverage than the US (75% to 50%).
the claim the profits aren't there is simply false.
the bigger problem the telcos are facing was the threat of more interference if they didn't meat the liberal mandate to lower prices. The claim that Canada was too expensive based on pricing around the world without taking into consideration the Canadian salary's, geography, and well maybe we weren't to expensive rather the others were unhealthy and unsustainable cheap. (You can see the problems the global telcos are facing due to this in the articles like McKinsey).
The real problem with the share price is the reduction in the multiples as the sentiment on the growth prospects of 5G coupled with the narrowing of the moat as competition elevates and government pressure compounds.
the elvation of the debt is misleading as the debt was used to buy hard assets like over 2B with of spectrum or 4M homes passed with fiber or the rollout of 5G towers and fiber. These are real hard assets that the debt and the profits bought.