A month ago, I wrote about Public Mobile’s launch plans, which include advanced sales and special promotions for customers who are willing to take the risk and sign up prior to the network being opened for service.
At the time, Public Mobile said that CRTC approval of its ownership structure was imminent, and a spokesperson at the CRTC confirmed that it was expecting to release a decision in March or early-April.
But here we are, a month from the scheduled launch, and there is still no word from the CRTC on the ownership review file.
As I have written before, Mobilicity’s ownership structure is also under review.
Did Tuesday’s remarks by the CRTC Chair at the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology contain any foreshadowing?
On Monday evening, I was at the Sony Ericsson launch for the Xperia X10 – partly to be up close and person with Jay Malinowski of the Bedouin Soundclash. It was great to check out the new device that will be released soon exclusively on the Rogers network.
The X10 uses the Android operating system, meaning that all sorts of applications can be added by users to personalize and enhance their device. This represents the first time that Sony Ericsson has gone with an open operating system.
Monday was also the day that news was widely released that Palm, the company that pretty much created the smart phone segment, was looking for a buyer.
Mobile devices are part of the frequently fickle consumer electronics marketplace. We have seen a number of companies fall in and out of fashion over the years. Design sizzle and marketing hype can be as important as technological functionality in making a consumer product a winner.
So, if a company with such a strong consumer electronics legacy like Sony has recognized the value of leveraging a global cadre of creative app developers, it makes me wonder how much longer it will take for RIM to develop an Android powered Blackberry? Will the Blackberry software suite become a licensed app on other consumer electronic devices? Will RIM look at a hybrid model like Microsoft – some licensed software and some devices (such as the new Kin) under total development and control?
There will be a panel looking at developments in smart phones and mobile services on Monday June 7 at The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit, including leaders from RIM and Microsoft.
The print version of our brochure for The 2010 Canadian Telecom Summit has been approved for mailing out this week. We have 6000 pieces going out.
We are particularly happy that Industry Minister Tony Clement will be delivering the opening keynote on June 7, which should help set the stage for our discussions. As my regular readers know, The Canadian Telecom Summit is the place where Canada’s communications industries get together.
You can read the latest version of the brochure here, without waiting for the mail delivery. Have you registered yet?
Last Tuesday, Verizon Chair and CEO Ivan Seidenberg had a ‘fireside chat’ with Alan Murray of the Wall Street Journal at an event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations. The transcript of the interview is worthwhile reading and it includes Seidenberg’s masterful handling of an open Q&A as well.
You can also watch the interview on video. Some of his comments are particularly relevant to a number of activities we’re following on the Canadian policy and regulatory front: regulated wholesale access (CRTC 09-261); the obligation to serve and basic service objective (CRTC 10-43); national digital strategy; Parliamentary INDU Committee hearings; and more .
Among the tidbits that resonated most with me:
I fear that when industry — not just us, but any company makes capital allocations decisions, if we start out with 2, 3, 4 billion dollars worth of government mandates that really don’t have any reality in how the market works, I worry about that, because that just adds costs, it reduces our incentive to invest in this country, and it affects hiring, and you know all the other things that go with that.
And
Anytime government — whether it’s the FCC or any agency — decides it knows what the market wants and makes that a static requirement, you always lose. So this FCC decided that speed of the network was the most important issue. So that’s all they measured.
…
In Japan, where everybody looks at Japan as being so far ahead, they may have faster speeds, but we have higher utilization of people using the Internet. So our view is, whenever you look at these issues, you have to be very careful to look at what the market wants, not what government says is the most important issue.
Seidenberg talks about universal service obligations, about choice, about freedoms to let service providers innovate. Interesting points to talk about over the water cooler this week.
On Wednesday, I wrote about the manner in which the government has proposed to amend the Telecom Act in order to permit increased levels of foreign ownership of satellite companies operating in Canada.
In effect, I wrote that the proposed language means that it will be possible for a foreign-owned company to be approved as a Canadian carrier – with all of the benefits and obligations associated with that designation – as long as the ownership of transmission facilities is limited to a list set out in Section 16(5): international submarine cables; earth stations that provide telecommunications services by means of satellites; or satellites.
As I wrote, for as little as an investment in a $200 satellite dish, resellers may be able to gain access to Canadian number resources and lower their interconnection costs, thanks to “bill-and-keep” facilities.
What if the government added mobile wireless network equipment and spectrum as a fourth category of section 16(5) exempted apparatus? Would this be a simplified way to introduce liberalized foreign ownership for new entrants who still have fairly basic elements in their network configurations?
This approach could theoretically enable the existing integrated carriers to rearrange their businesses to separate the mobile assets, allowing more foreign direct investment in a purely mobile subsidiary, but it is not clear that there would be sufficient benefits to offset the restructuring.
