A number of articles appeared today that seem to tie together as a partial list of reference materials for students of Canadian telecom policy:
- Carmi Levy’s article on Yahoo’s Dashboard: Mobilicity shows why wireless competition rules need to change, fast
- A story from Reuters: Analysis: Spanish telecom firms show peril of pinning hopes on 4G
- An OpEd in the Globe and Mail by Martha Hall Findlay: Our cellphone woes are real, but forcing in competitors isn’t the answer
- Canadian Press coverage of a new report from The Convergence Consulting Group: New wireless players’ low prices not sustainable over long term: report
I found a common theme in the articles. Do you get the same sense?
Mobilicity has not said who the proposed buyer is, but the Globe and Mail is reporting “that Mobilicity and Telus are in talks to rekindle a sale that the federal government publicly killed in early June”. It is not known what the value is for a new deal, or how such an arrangement would be structured to get around the restrictions in Mobilicity’s licenses [see Appendix 2 of this license, as an example] that preclude transfer prior to February 10, 2014. Mobilicity acquired its wireless spectrum in 2008 for $243M.
Why was there so little interest by others in acquiring Mobilicity, for its customers or its spectrum?
What lessons can we learn?
Update: The court documents for the CCAA [Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act] proceeding can be found on the Ernst & Young website. In particular, the Affidavit in the Initial Application Record [pdf, 41MB] has interesting insights for those who are voyeuristically inclined.
The only lesson I can see is that your viewpoint is being restated as opinion by persons related to the big 3 in papers that are owned by incumbent telcos or that you are quoted in Mark.
John,
You are usually more articulate than this. Frankly, I am not sure what you are saying is it about Mark or is it about the issue. Anyway, I was always taught that the facts are the path to understanding. My daughter’s dance schedule is more complicated than this. There is a problem and making competitors or propping them up isn’t the answer. Oh, and TELUS doesn’t own newspapers or radio stations or television stations.
The incumbents attacked the new entrants on their home turf. Wherever the new entrants offered lower prices, the incumbents offered lower prices, too – without lowering their prices in other parts of the countr. This is illegal under section 27 of the Telecommunications Act, but, to my knowledge, no authority took action against it.
As a result, the incumbents where able to charge extremely high fees in most of Canada, cross-subdizing “fight back” offers in the contested cities. The new entrants do not have such a resource, so they are unable to earn the capital necessary to invest in a nationwide network rollout.