I spent a few days this past week at a jewel of the Maritimes, the Fairmont Algonquin in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, attending preliminary festivities for the Barrett East Coast Amateur golf tournament.

I won’t dwell on the second hole of the Algonquin, where I sank a 130 yard approach shot for my first eagle, but I can tell you that one stroke will help burn the trip into my memory. I can also recommend a stop at Ossie’s seafood stand on Highway 1 between St. George and St. Andrews.

I have mentioned in the past that I act as an advisor to Barrett Xplore (BXI). BXI has focussed on serving rural Canada:

Our vision is simple — more for rural Canada: more choice, competition, and availability of broadband access, applications, and accessories.

BXI is continuing to succeed in delivering advanced network services without government assistance.

It was great to have a chance to spend some time with many of the company principals as well as their suppliers and associates.

Earlier this week, I ranted about The Ottawa Citizen publishing a lead editorial that was sloppy in its choice of language. The article said quite plainly:

Nobody with a cutting-edge product to sell wants to set up someplace where mobile phone and data connections are second-rate and cripplingly expensive, particularly if they’re in the information-age industries we prize so highly, any more than you’d build a factory in a place with no roads or rail.

Let me suggest that you can parse that sentence and apply syllogistic logic to see that all that was necessary to disprove a thesis – that Canadian “mobile phone and data connections are second-rate and cripplingly expensive” – was to find a single counter example of a company with a cutting-edge product that wanted to set up in Canada. I suggested in my original posting that all the Citizen had to do was look at Ottawa’s technology sector in its own backyard.

In his blog, Michael Geist tries to clarify what the intent of the Citizen might have been. Michael’s weekly Law Bytes column is carried by the Citizen. He wrote:

I believe that the Citizen was trying to make the case – rightly in my view – that the long-term ability to attract and retain that talent and investment requires a forward looking law and policy infrastructure that supports sufficient competition to allow for pricing that is globally competitive.

I think that most of us would agree that “a forward looking law and policy infrastructure” is at least a contributing factor to encourage attraction and retention of talent and investment.

But, what does that law and policy infrastructure looks like? To “allow for pricing that is globally competitive,” is a very different proposition from say, intervention in a market. How does one define “sufficient competition“? Would we use competition law tests?

Is there any solid academic, econometric analysis to support the assertions being put forward?

Does any of this sound like an interesting doctoral research project?

UBS says that while it is still possible, it is not probable that TELUS could still launch a hostile takeover of Bell.

According to the report that came out last week,

Our conclusion is that it would be very difficult for TELUS to gain the certainty that we think it needs from the Competition Bureau ahead of the BCE shareholder vote. We continue to believe that the probability of TELUS launching a hostile bid for BCE is 25% or less.

UBS says that without strong assurance from the Competition Bureau, there would be a significant regulatory risk that would have to be offset by a 5-10% premium to BCE shareholders. At $46.75, BCE shareholders would pick up the value of all the merger synergies.

TELUS is releasing its quarterly results on Friday.

Technorati Tags:
Bell, TELUS, UBS

Whazzup with the fact-checking in recent editorials on wireless services?

It started with last week’s Montreal Gazette editorial and then moved out to the Vancouver Sun. On Monday, the Ottawa Citizen jumped on the bandwagon, substituting hyperbole for facts in expressing its opinion on wireless services.

Last week, I dared to point out that the Gazette ignored facts that didn’t agree with its agenda. The Citizen went beyond that stage and just got its facts wrong.

One paragraph was particularly insulting to the software and hardware developers that call Canada home:

Nobody with a cutting-edge product to sell wants to set up someplace where mobile phone and data connections are second-rate and cripplingly expensive, particularly if they’re in the information-age industries we prize so highly, any more than you’d build a factory in a place with no roads or rail.

Are they really suggesting that Canada doesn’t offer opportunities for communications research and development? Has the Citizen not looked out the window into the nature of industries set up in its own backyard? There are at least a couple people in the National Capital Region who draw paychecks from companies developing cutting edge products, including multi-national firms that could easily relocate elsewhere.

Outside the city of dreams (as a former boss of mine used to call Ottawa), companies like Ericsson continue to expand their Canadian presence. Hundreds of entrepreneurs continue to innovate in companies located in every corner of the country.

What exactly did the Citizen mean by ‘nobody’? Is the Citizen suggesting that none of them want to set up in Ottawa, let alone anywhere else in Canada?

Another point. With the OECD having just released its annual communications review, why would the Citizen look at the 2003 report – and misquote it at that?

According to 2003 figures from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada lagged all other member countries in mobile-phone use with about 40-per-cent adoption; most other OECD countries were at 80 per cent or above.

Besides the fact that the cited figures are 3 years out of date, the numbers refer to mobile phone penetration, not mobile phone use. Fact is, Canadians are among the world’s biggest users of their mobile phones. Can we possibly deduce that, despite all of us wanting lower mobile rates, the pricing may be affordable?

Let’s look at the paragraph that creatively calls CDMA the cellular equivalent of Betamax – I actually think that is a clever metaphor, but the Citizen wasn’t satisfied with leaving it at that. Instead, it proclaimed:

a lack of interoperability with foreign providers makes life difficult for Canadians wanting to take their mobiles abroad, and for foreigners visiting Canada on business.

I don’t believe it. Bell and TELUS both offer a number of devices, including the latest Blackberry, that provide global roaming capabilities. Help me understand how foreign business people have been disadvantaged visiting Canada, just because we only have one GSM company? Is there any research to back this up, or is this another anecdotal tale being repeated to create an image of truth.

Canadians need to have an intelligent debate of the issues in respect of the upcoming spectrum auction. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue. Better decisions are a logical outcome when there is a vibrant discussion of important issues. But can we agree to at least consider the facts?

We deserve more accurate information from our newspapers in presenting support for their arguments.

At last, the CRTC has issued its RFP for Canada’s Do Not Call List (DNCL) registry operator.

Earlier this month, the CRTC issued Decision 2007-48, describing the rules that will come into place, once the database is operational.

Yesterday’s release of the RFP on MERX will start the process to select the DNCL Operator, as well as ultimately enable the creation of the database and the commencement of the new regulatory framework.

As we described, Canadians will be able to add their numbers to the database, at no charge. To register or de-register on the National DNCL, the consumer will call a toll-free number from the telephone number that they wish to register or de-register. Registration will also be available online.

Interested? To bid, parties must submit proposals that demonstrate they meet certain mandatory requirements, including:

• Possess the financial resources to offset the expected start-up costs and the first two years of operational costs;
• Provide a company profile describing their relevant knowledge and experience;
• Possess a qualified project management team capable of developing and managing the National DNCL for the duration of the contract.

MERX is not always the most friendly system for finding a single, specific opportunity. To help you find this one, look under “Information Processing and Related Telecommunications Services” for Reference Number 136139 and Solicitation Number CRTC-28-07-07.

Proposals are due on September 10.