A lack of competition. The snag is that Canada has low population density - which means that yes, you can afford to cover most big cities in cell towers, but not outside the city limits – because you might only serve users who are in a car or on a train as they pass through that cell – and it’s prohibitively expensive to put up a multi-million dollar cell tower to serve users who are passing through for a few minutes at a time.

This is why all of the cell infrastructure is owned by two companies – because when mobile phone service came to Canada, the fees were high enough, and the costs low enough, that they could afford to build out sites because they were insanely profitable – in addition to getting funding from the federal government to build out this infrastructure. That’s why they’re the incumbents – they have a critical mass of cell sites, and upgrading hardware every decade or two is cheap compared to purchasing/leasing the land and building a tower from scratch (including bringing in power and fibre).

lobbying, I guess

No, it’s absolutely lobbying and regulatory capture. When I worked in the telco space, back when long distance competition came to Canada, the CRTC was a constant revolving door of lawyers and company VPs from the telcos. The running gag in our office was that if a decision didn’t go our way, that the C-Suite would have to fire someone for the failure, so they could go work at the CRTC and influence the next decision in our favour.

But it wasn’t a gag. Three of my co-workers from that time ended up taking their turns at the CRTC as analysts and commissioners.