On Monday, I posted the story of Globalive landing its spectrum license and I included a link to the Industry Canada table that shows the current status of the various AWS auction winners.

There are a few blanks in the table and the most noticeable are Shaw and Public Mobile. Strategically, they may be the smartest of the bunch.

Today’s Globe and Mail story about Globalive’s licenses refers to the company as “one of the last bidders to receive clearance.” Everyone has already paid for their bids so you might ask why some might want to delay receiving their licenses.

I ask, “what’s the hurry?”

There are a number of clocks that start ticking from the moment the license gets issued, but none affect the preparatory work, such as negotiating access and building a company. On the other hand, there are good reasons for some to stall the license approval as long as possible.

First off, there is the 10 year license itself. At the end of 10 years, there will be a renewal fee that will be in the millions of dollars per megahertz, based on current rates of more than a $1 per megahertz per pop. Delaying the initial license means stalling that 10-year renewal fee, resulting in savings of millions (if not tens of millions) of dollars. In Globalive’s case, their license fee works out to more than $44M per year. Delays saved them $11M, compared to the effective cost if Globalive had received their licenses in December.

Secondly, there are the roaming and tower sharing rights that run for 5 or 10 years, again calculated from the date of issuance of their license, not the date that the spectrum starts getting used.

For companies that don’t plan to start service immediately, it seems more prudent to delay the issuance of the licenses as long as possible.

The meter is running for all but three licensees. What was the rush for everyone else?

The chief executives for new entrants Public Mobile, DAVE Wireless and Globalive will all be speaking at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit in June. Have you booked your seat yet?

Technorati Tags:
AWS, license, Industry Canada

Globalive Wireless received its AWS spectrum license on Friday, having satisfied Industry Canada’s requirements in respect of foreign ownership.

The company will still need to undergo a review by the CRTC, which may be a more public process. It will be interesting to see if the company is held to the same standard as was set by the CRTC in its review of Bell Canada’s proposed ownership structure under the aborted privatization last year.

Globalive founder and CEO Tony Lacavera and Globalive Wireless President Ken Campbell will both be speaking at The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit in June. Have you booked your seat yet?

---

Update [March 16, 1:50 pm]
Globalive has issued a press release which announces their spectrum license award and announcing plans to hire 1000 people over the next 12 months to build the company.

Technorati Tags:
Globalive, wireless, AWS, CRTC, Industry Canada

As we wrote earlier, yesterday saw coverage of two distinct appeals to cabinet. TELUS filed an appeal on Wednesday that covers the same CRTC decisions as Bell/Bell Aliant.

The Bell and TELUS appeal argues that the CRTC’s decision to mandate resale of its fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) network will inhibit investment in next generation infrastructure.

MTS Allstream is arguing that the lack of access to unbundled ethernet access will serve to limit competition in the supply of next generation networks to the business market.

The applications should not come as a surprise.

As mentioned in December, I had questions about the statistics upon which the Commission based its decision under appeal by MTS Allstream. At the time, I asked:

How can we be sure its conclusion is correct for all markets across Canada?

I have to wonder if the Public Works / DND dispute with Bell and TELUS could be resolved any easier had the CRTC had ruled in favour of MTS Allstream in Decision 2008-118? That case may demonstrate that there could be a difference in how to regulate (or forbear from regulating) the very large enterprise market versus the smaller business markets.

The CRTC’s Telecom Policy pronouncement 2009-34 [also part of the MTS Allstream appeal] launched a proceeding that considers the feasibility of an unbundled ADSL access service. This does not go far enough for MTS Allstream to serve its business customers’ networks.

The Bell application was equally foreshadowed by the fundamental disagreement between the ILECs and the language contained in Decision 2008-117. I described this in January and the CRTC affirmed that interpretation last week.

While Cabinet has until December 2009 to deal with these applications, there are fundamental issues at stake that beg for a more urgent handling. In both cases, we can see requests for a statement on how this government views the evolution of next generation network services in Canada.

Broadband policy is more than simply improving accessibility in rural markets. Direction from the government could determine the availability of next generation services for businesses and consumers, impacting productivity and the ability to lead an information economy as we emerge from this recession.

Will these applications to the Governor-in-Council drive a policy framework for digital infrastructure – accelerating development of a vision for a Digital Canada?

Cabinet is getting hit from two sides today with dueling appeals related to CRTC decisions on broadband.

Bell has filed an appeal that argues that the CRTC has issued rulings that serve to discourage investment in next-generation networks by forcing ILECs to provide competitors with regulated access to next-generation networks; MTS Allstream has filed a separate appeal that says the CRTC denied competitors the right to fair access to the ILECs’ local broadband networks.

At first blush, it appears that Bell is saying the CRTC has gone too far; MTS Allstream says the Commission hasn’t gone far enough. Some might suggest that this shows the CRTC got it right. You need to look beyond the superficial to see that we have different CRTC decisions being appealed.

Bell’s appeal targets Decision 2008-117, and the companion Order 2009-111 – the Cybersurf proceedings. MTS Allstream’s appeal targets Decision 2008-118 and Regulatory Policy 2009-34 – related to ethernet access as essential facilities.

Why today? The rules say you have to file an appeal to the Governor in Council within 90 days of a CRTC ruling. The clock was ticking from the December 11, 2008 release of Decisions 117 and 118. Under Section 12 of the Telecom Act, Cabinet has until December 11, 2009 to vary or rescind the decisions or refer them back to the Commission for reconsideration of all or a portion of the issues.

The issues raised are both related but distinct and there are significant issues related to the level of investment in infrastructure and availability of competitive choice for next generation telecom services in Canada, affecting consumers and business. We’ll have more to say in coming days.

The Regulatory Blockbuster is always a highlight at The Canadian Telecom Summit; this issue is certain to add to the fireworks for the panel discussion on the morning of June 16.

Have you registered for The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit?

Technorati Tags:
Bell, MTS Allstream, CRTC, Cabinet

Yesterday, the Toronto Star printed an article recognizing the 10th anniversary of Ontario’s Electronic Child Health Network (eCHN).

I read the story and wondered if we should be celebrating or mourning eCHN’s achievements over the past 10 years.

The article says:

Last week, eCHN celebrated its 10th anniversary. It is now hailed as the model for a comprehensive provincial system of electronic health records. It covers every region, encompasses 100 hospitals and includes the medical histories of 1.2 million children.
…
The database is still a work in progress. Children without hospital records aren’t included. Most physicians in private practice aren’t part of it. And 50 or so hospitals have yet to be connected.

So, after 10 years, most physicians in private practice aren’t connected, but isn’t that where most children’s medical records are located? Aren’t private physicians providing the bulk of our kids’ primary care?

As a result, the eCHN can’t have the complete medical histories of 1.2M children, it has partial records. As the article says:

Access to up-to-date information eliminates guesswork, reduces delays in treatment and lowers the risk of adverse drug reactions. It allows all the doctors, nurses and therapists working on a child’s case to see the big picture.

Without the private physicians records, how can we avoid either delays or guesswork. For a project 10 years in the works, has eCHN gone far enough?

The results from eCHN proves that the project is doable, but it seems to me that we need to get it done.

An article about Terry Matthews in the Ottawa Business Journal celebrates the energy of top rated new grads. A comment in that article observes that 10 years ago, the founders of Google had nothing but fire in their belly.

I’m not suggesting that eCHN should be held to such a Google-like standard – no project on the planet could- but with billions of dollars per year in Ontario health care spending, should we not be demanding a faster pace of modernization for the system?

The Federal Budget included funds to accelerate electronic health records [which we observed should be a positive for TELUS Health Solutions]. Provincial governments need to invest as well in this kind of keyboard-ready infrastructure. This is a stimulus plan that is almost certain to produce a positive ROI.