Last week, Bell and Bell Aliant filed a cabinet appeal saying that a consequence of the CRTC’s Cybersurf speed-matching decision is to discourage investment in next generation FTTN networks. That appeal is similar to one filed the evening before by TELUS. There was also an appeal filed by MTS Allstream of 2 different CRTC decisions, dealing with wholesale access to unbundled ethernet. [Links to the various decisions can be found here.]

A general concern associated with regulation is the potential for unintended consequences to arise from intervention in the marketplace. This is why it is Canada’s official policy to rely on market forces to the maximum extent feasible as the means of achieving the telecommunications policy objectives.

In his February speech to the Canadian Film and Television Production Association’s Prime Time conference, CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein commented that the Commission is always particularly concerned about unintended consequences associated with its actions. Earlier this week, in the New Media proceedings, the Chair commented:

You know, we, like everybody else, avoid unintended consequences and when you just look at things through one lens, like in this case the broadcasting, you may have produced some consequence you didn’t want to because you didn’t look at the overall picture or you didn’t have jurisdiction for it.

The CRTC determination on matching speeds may have made sense through the lens of Section 27(2) of the Telecom Act:

No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.

Keep in mind that Not all discrimination is forbidden. There is such thing as “just” discrimination.

In May 2006, the CRTC found that TbayTel had discriminated against its competitor, Superior Wireless, but its actions did not constitute ‘unjust discrimination’ under the Telecom Act. TBayTel was found to have treated the customers of Superior Wireless differently from the way it treats roaming customers of other carriers, however there was no ‘unjust’ discrimination, when considering the degree of competition in wireless services.

What constitutes a “sufficient degree of competition” in the services being examined? How can we be certain that there is an adequate measure of the degree of competition and that the statistics are reliable?

Had a similar lens been applied to examine internet services as the Commission used for mobile wireless in Decision 2006-33, would the outcome of the decisions under appeal have been the same?

As I wrote in late February, a number of parties noticed that the CRTC had not provided an opportunity for a final reply phase in its internet Network Management proceeding.

Today, the CRTC amended the procedures to provide a chance for participants to file concise final replies (at most 10 pages), responding to matters raised in the written and oral submissions by 24 July 2009.

Last week, I wrote about the slow pace of adoption of electronic health records by Ontario’s private physicians.

A colleague pointed out a recent article in the NY Times about Walmart marketing a digital health records system through its Sam’s Club division, which recently announced its exit from Canada.

The Walmart system is bundling Dell’s computers with an application from eClinicalWorks.

will be under $25,000 for the first physician in a practice, and about $10,000 for each additional doctor. After the installation and training, continuing annual costs for maintenance and support will be $4,000 to $6,500 a year

The Times story says that health technology suppliers have found it costly to sell to small physician offices because even though they represent a large market, they are scattered. Enter Sam’s Club.

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