Mediacheck

Who Gets to Own a Telecom Firm in Canada?

Upstart Wind Mobile wants to compete with the Big Three. But foreign investment rules might stop it. Is that old-fashioned?

By Michael Geist, 17 Nov 2009, TheTyee.ca

satellite-dishes.jpg

Are we paying for out of date restrictions?

Related

Corporate structures and loan agreements are rarely the stuff of public interest, yet last month they attracted considerable attention in a case involving Globalive, a new wireless company vying to shake up Canada's telecommunications industry. Operating as Wind Mobile, the company paid hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008 to scoop up spectrum to enable it to operate as a new national wireless carrier.

Bell Canada, Telus Corp., and Rogers Communications, the big three incumbent carriers, unsurprisingly opposed the new rival. First they lobbied against a set-aside of spectrum for new entrants. When that failed, they argued Globalive failed to comply with the Telecommunications Act's foreign control restrictions.

Last month, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission agreed. While Industry Canada previously concluded the company met the Canadian control requirements for the purposes of the Radiocommunications Act when it bid for spectrum, the CRTC concluded that its ownership and control structure do not meet the legal requirements to operate as a wireless carrier.

The commission identified a number of changes that will be needed to comply with the law, and Globalive says it is evaluating its options. The first option is presumably for the federal cabinet to overrule the CRTC.

Last week, Industry Minister Tony Clement gave Canada's telecom players until Wednesday to provide their views on the issue as he conducts a pre-cabinet review. A decision may be weeks away, but the process puts a much bigger question into play: Will the Globalive case become the catalyst for the elimination of telecom foreign control restrictions?

Time marches on

This is hardly the first time the foreign control issue has been raised in Canada. There have been earlier recommendations to scrap the requirements, most recently in the 2006 Telecom Policy Review Committee report, which concluded that Canada has "one of the most restrictive and inflexible set of rules limiting foreign investment in the telecommunications sector" among all OECD countries.

With hindsight, it should have been obvious that the foreign control issue would be the elephant in the room around the government's efforts to inject greater competition into the Canadian telecom sector. There is little doubt that officials -- not to mention Canadian consumers -- were anxious to encourage new entrants. While the set-aside in the spectrum auction guaranteed the new entrants, leaving the foreign control rules untouched meant the job was only half-done.

With the Globalive entry into the Canadian market at risk and hundreds of millions in spectrum in limbo, Canadians must ask hard questions about the merits of foreign control restrictions.

The days of retaining Canadian control over physical telecommunications infrastructure connected to millions of homes are over. Wireless networks involve significant investments in cellphone towers, but not direct connectedness into individual homes.

Further, the notion that Canadian control guarantees Canadian jobs is also part of a by-gone era. Canadian carriers regularly outsource some of their customer service jobs out of the country. Meanwhile, other parts of the organization -- retail and business sales as well as network building -- involve jobs that will remain in Canada regardless of a company's country-of-origin. While some head office jobs may be at risk, new companies operating in Canada could potentially create more jobs, not fewer.

Change the law

It is tempting to blame the CRTC or the incumbent telecom providers for the current mess, but the real culprit lies with outdated legislation that prioritizes Canadian ownership over a competitive Canadian marketplace.

The solution lies in changing the law to facilitate foreign ownership of common carriers -- both to facilitate immediate competition and to pave the way for more foreign bidders in the next round of spectrum auctions.  [Tyee]

14  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • kida0101

    2 years ago

    more competition

    Canada needs more competition in the wireless sector, plain and simple.

    I would far rather let a foreign company profit, so long as it provides more competition, than allow the Bell/Telus/Rogers oligopoly continue to mock me.

    Their bills are outrageous and their customer services is a joke.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Good governance

    ... comes with public infrastructure through the ownership of the means of distribution:
    http://www.cwirp.ca/files/CWIRP_Final_report.pdf

    When the market has failed and regulators have been captured, natural monopolies must be structured as not-for-profits public utilities. Like water.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Good governance

    ... comes with public infrastructure through the ownership of the means of distribution:
    http://www.cwirp.ca/files/CWIRP_Final_report.pdf

    When the market has failed and regulators have been captured, natural monopolies must be structured as not-for-profits public utilities. Like water.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Good governance

    ... comes with public infrastructure through the ownership of the means of distribution:
    http://www.cwirp.ca/files/CWIRP_Final_report.pdf

    When the market has failed and regulators have been captured, natural monopolies must be structured as not-for-profits public utilities. Like water.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Good governance

    ... comes with public infrastructure through the ownership of the means of distribution:
    http://www.cwirp.ca/files/CWIRP_Final_report.pdf

    When the market has failed and regulators have been captured, natural monopolies must be structured as not-for-profits public utilities. Like water.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Good governance

    ... comes with public infrastructure through the ownership of the means of distribution:
    http://www.cwirp.ca/files/CWIRP_Final_report.pdf

    When the market has failed and regulators have been captured, natural monopolies must be structured as not-for-profits public utilities. Like water.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Good governance

    ... comes with public infrastructure through the ownership of the means of distribution:
    http://www.cwirp.ca/files/CWIRP_Final_report.pdf

    When the market has failed and regulators have been captured, natural monopolies must be structured as not-for-profits public utilities. Like water.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Good governance

    ... comes with public infrastructure through the ownership of the means of distribution:
    http://www.cwirp.ca/files/CWIRP_Final_report.pdf

    When the market has failed and regulators have been captured, natural monopolies must be structured as not-for-profits public utilities. Like water.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Good governance

    ... comes with public infrastructure through the ownership of the means of distribution:
    http://www.cwirp.ca/files/CWIRP_Final_report.pdf

    When the market has failed and regulators have been captured, natural monopolies must be structured as not-for-profits public utilities. Like water.

  • OilbertaRedTory

    2 years ago

    Good governance

    ... comes with public infrastructure through the ownership of the means of distribution:
    http://www.cwirp.ca/files/CWIRP_Final_report.pdf

    When the market has failed and regulators have been captured, natural monopolies must be structured as not-for-profits public utilities. Like water.

  • make_up_another...

    2 years ago

    Make Them Pay, Not Us!

    True, Canadian ownership doesn't necessarily guarantee that jobs and profits will benefit Canadian workers, or that it won't harm them. So let's start requiring that ANY corporation, Canadian or foreign that wants a tax incentive in this country be required to provide quality jobs IN this country, or else tax them at a progressive rate.

    If they aren't going to contribute something to Canada then they should pay a price.

    In the US competition is fierce but the prices, while lower for mobile services, are fairly stable. If one company offer A for B, the others will follow suit in short order. Price wars can't be won. Battles may be won over exclusive rights to new models but the war is one elsewhere.

    Where they try to edge the competition is in customer service and loyalty. It costs them more money to subsidize a new customer than to keep an old one. The return on subsidizing expensive smart phones at a discount comes over years, by keeping customers happy. Price works too, but ultimately service triumphs. People will pay a premium for better customer service. Bad service is what allowed a giant, AT&T, to be swallowed by a much smaller fish, Cingular.

  • mr.light

    2 years ago

    the spectrum is OURS

    "When the market has failed and regulators have been captured, natural monopolies must be structured as not-for-profits public utilities. Like water."

    Exactly. Geist accepts that the feds can auction off OUR spectrum as they like. If it is in fact ours, we should be able to use it to communicate as we wish, without needing to buy into corporate service plans or federally supervised conversations.

    The technology exists for us to do this. Funded by Canadian tax dollars, it is for military use, not ours.
    http://www.crc.gc.ca/en/html/crc/home/mediazone/eye_on_tech/2009/issue10/olsr

  • mmphosis

    2 years ago

    owe nerdship not required

    I think that North Americans pay too much to telecom firms. Receiving a call on a cell phone costs money? Internet access with speeds way way below 10Mbps being called highspeed? Monopolistic firms having been given our public telecom infrastructure on a silver platter by government? It's time to unplug, build our own community based networks.
    http://www.uh.edu/engines/nycandwires.jpg

  • ME2

    2 years ago

    Sorry mmphosis, it ain't in the cards.

    mmphosis says"

    "It's time to unplug, build our own community based networks."

    That's made sense to me for over ten years, ever since I became involved in a comunity process with just that objective in mind.

    However, such an objective was not in Telus' interest, nor conistent with Campbell's neoLiberal philosophy, and so through various strategemns, we were maneuvered into being put under the total thrall of Telus, where we remain.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.