Search Results for: foreign

MTS: Dusting off the Income Trust?

With the excitement surounding Bell’s acquisition of Aliant and the creation of a massive regional telecom income trust, I wonder if anyone at MTS is having second thoughts.

Almost exactly 2 years ago, on March 18 2004, John McLennan and Bill Fraser announced that income trusts make no sense in telecom and that was why MTS would abandon such a proposal in favour of the acquisition of Allstream. At the time, Bill Fraser said that acquiring Allstream gave shareholders all the benefits of an income trust.

Two years ago, Fraser went so far as saying it would be quite a stretch to find any executive in any telco in Canada to say that revenues and cash flows are predictable and stable enough to fit an income trust model. VoIP and competition coupled with regulatory uncertainty raised concerns of being capital constrained under an income trust structure.

At the time, Yellow Pages, Bell Nordiq and Amtelecom were the examples of Income Trusts that people pointed to In fairness to MTS, neither of the remote and rural operating companies had substantial sized cities like Winnipeg inside their operating territory to be direct comparables.

Still, a lot of MTS’ forecasted revenue increases and capital savings didn’t materialize and it is hard to see which shareholders actually received benefits. It sometimes seems that the main asset that Allstream brought was its $3B in tax losses.

At the time of the Allstream transaction, Fraser spoke of an income trust stock price of around $55 – the same as the reference price for Allstream deal. It just happens that $55 would be a dream for MTS today, which has been languishing closer to $40.

An income trust appears to be a more realistic option for regional carriers like MTS with the new plans for Aliant. Although Winnipeg is much larger than Halifax, the rest of Manitoba looks an awful lot like a flattened version of Atlantic Canada. And I’d take Winnipeg Goldeye over Nova lox any day of the week!

I wonder whether MTS is willing to take a fresh look at how to best unlock shareholder value in its asset base.

Is there anyone who would take Allstream off MTS’ hands to enable the rest of Manitoba to be gobbled up by the Bell Income Trust? If we see a relaxation of foreign ownership restrictions, Allstream could help a global player gain a national footprint at bargain prices.

A Cingularly competitive carrier

Cingular Wireless is one of the biggest assets that AT&T; is seeking to gain in its acquisition of Bell South. We can expect that this will result in the re-launch of the AT&T; Wireless brand in the US and permit an improved focus for Cingular.

It seems to me that the new AT&T; Wireless could be just what Industry Canada wants to shake-up the Canadian marketplace. It has been rumoured that Ottawa would like to see a fourth wireless carrier. Of course, if that is true, it makes you wonder why these folks approved Rogers’ acquisition of Microcell.

That aside, many have wondered who is breaking down the doors shouting for a liberalization of foreign ownership restrictions. Who would be willing to invest substantial dollars in Canadian telecom?

Well, it wouldn’t take an outrageous amount of money for AT&T; to shake up the Canadian wireless industry. Set up a bit of network in downtown Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver just to cut into the zillions of dollars being spent in roaming for American visitors and you can bet that the repercussions will be felt throughout the land.

Introduce a little bit of US style pricing and suddenly the comfortable oligopoly (as Industry Canada calls it) will start to operate a little differently.

I’d call it a Cingularly elegant way to shake things up a bit.

How much competition is enough?

Industry Canada is telling its Minister, Maxime Bernier, that Canada’s telecom industry has become too complacent and comfortable. In its briefing to the new Minister, there are signs that the federal department believes that Canada’s competitiveness has fallen behind in a number of important areas, including investment, innovation, broadband penetration, telecom prices and mobile wireless services.

The Inukshuk joint venture between Rogers and Bell is cited as an example of how the industry is enjoying a softening in competition and entering into a comfortable oligopoly.

The briefing notes suggest that liberalizing foreign ownership restrictions may be one way to re-energize the industry’s competitiveness. The department also suggests that there is a dampening in the investment climate due to regulatory uncertainty in respect of New Media and its overlap with Broadcasting.

The top 6 challenges from the perspective of Industry Canada:

  • Improve opportunities for foreign investment in telecommunications
  • Address specific concerns over foreign investment in cable TV companies
  • Facilitate competition in telecommunications services
  • Address specific issues of rural and remote areas
  • Provide certainty regarding the policy and regulatory framework applicable to internet and “on-demand” services
  • Manage spectrum to encourage new services and greater competition

The briefing may be providing some interesting foreshadowing for what we can expect to see from the Telecom Policy Review panel, which is releasing its report in a couple weeks.

Bell Canada Connects to Ameritech

Background

On March 3, 1999, Bell Canada reached an agreement with MCI WorldCom that provided it with Canadian rights to offer MCI WorldCom’s products and gave the US company broader access to Canada. A day later, AT&T Canada announced that it was merging with Metronet, Canada’s leading Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC). On March 24, BCE announced that it was selling a 20% stake in its telephone operating company holdings to Ameritech, the US RBOC formed from the former “Baby Bell” companies in the American rust belt states of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin. In May of 1998, Ameritech and SBC (of Texas) announced a $57B (US) merger.

Dialling for Dollars

BCE gets $3.4B (US) for the 20% stake in its telecom portfolio which includes: Bell Canada (including Nexxia, ActiMedia directories and the MTS investment), 65% of BCE Mobility (cellular), 21% of Teleglobe, and holdings in 6 regional companies (including all of the Atlantic provincial companies). Ameritech secures a foothold in Canada, the most significant trading partner for US traffic. The US and Canada exchange more minutes of traffic than any other pair of countries on the planet.Bell’s Nexxia unit already has fiber (acquired from Ledcor Industries) running through Ameritech territory, providing a southern leg to a ring connecting Canada’s west to Bell Canada’s core Ontario markets. Nexxia will be in an interesting position to provide international and inter-LATA services to Ameritech customers, allowing Ameritech a back door into the long distance business in its home territory. The US FCC restricts Ameritech from entering the long distance business in its home market until it satisfies certain requirements for emerging local competition. Indeed, the Bell brand is well known in Ameritech territory; its former telephone company business units all operated under the Bell moniker – Michigan Bell, Illinois Bell, Ohio Bell, etc. While Ameritech only acquires a small stake in Teleglobe through this transaction (indirectly less than 5%), Teleglobe could be a beneficiary of improved relations with Ameritech’s extensive investments in European carriers. The partnership needs global connectivity beyond North America – Teleglobe provides that capability, although the MCI Worldcom alliance raises possible options or conflicts in this area.

Who is next?

Canadian telecom companies are clearly in season for foreign investors. Bell’s former alliance partners in the west, BCT.Telus is already 26% owned by GTE (and Bell Atlantic). Videotron, the largest cable company in Quebec, announced on March 23 that it was seeking an investor partner to exploit its network assets. Rogers, Canada’s largest cable company has been the subject of equity investment talk over the past number of months. Four years ago, in the early days of competition in Canada, many of the telephone companies heralded their Canadian heritage against the foreign new entrants. BCE’s sale of part of Bell Canada “breaks the ice” for the remaining Canadian communications icons to go global. Ironically, among major companies, only government owned Sasktel remains 100% Canadian.

Canada Announces International Licensing Regime – The Race Begins

Background
Almost a year ago, on October 2, 1997, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) issued Telecom Public Notice 97-34 (“PN97-34”) in order to examine the means by which competition would be introduced in the provision of international telecommunications services. International services represent the last segment of the industry to be opened to competition in Canada. Telecom Decision 97-10, reissued on December 19, 1997 witnessed the introduction of international competition on a resale basis. Today’s decision, Decision 98-17, sets in place the licensing and regulatory regimes for facilities based competition with Teleglobe. This Decision follows through on commitments made by Canada under the February 15, 1997 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) covering basic telecommunications negotiated under the World Trade Organization.

In PN97-34, the CRTC requested proposals and comments on the regulatory regime, addressing issues such as: Canadian telecommunications policy objectives set out in section 7 of Canada’s Telecommunications Act (including those relating to the efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian national and international telecommunications (subsection 7(c)), to the promotion of Canadian transmission facilities (subsection 7(e)), and to fostering increased reliance on market forces and ensuring that regulation, where required, is efficient and effective (subsection 7(f)).

Application of the Telecom Act
Decision 98-17 has determined that ownership of an Indefeasible Right of Use (“IRU”) is not, by itself, sufficient to change a reseller into a common carrier, for the purposes of the Telecommunications Act, since the service providers would only be operating “exempt” transmission apparatus. This means that acquiring an IRU will not subject a reseller to restrictions on Canadian carriers, including foreign ownership, contained in the Act. Specifically, the CRTC found that the following “would not be Canadian carriers: (a) a Telecommunications Common Carrier (“TCC”) that owns or operates facilities in Canada but does not provide services to the public in Canada for compensation; or (b) a TCC that only owns or operates transmission facilities located outside Canada.”

As a result, an IRU on the “dry” portion of an international cable will not be subjected to ownership restrictions. This fine point greatly improves the ability of foreign carriers to enter Canada and may increase the ways that foreign entities can circumvent some of the ownership criteria for carriers operating in Canada.

Licensing Regime
As of January 1, 1999, most long distance service providers will be subjected to a new licensing regime. In the decision, the CRTC stated that a purpose of a licensing regime is to “ensure that foreign monopolies cannot use their dominance in their home markets to gain an unfair competitive advantage in the Canadian market.” The license will include a condition that requires that service providers not engage in anti-competitive conduct, which will permit the CRTC to lift the license from those carriers which violate this condition. The CRTC has specifically defined “anti-competitive conduct” as including “entering into or continuing to participate in an agreement or an arrangement that has, or is likely to have, the effect of preventing or lessening competition unduly in Canada, or otherwise providing telecommunications services in a manner that has, or is likely to have, the effect of preventing or lessening competition unduly in Canada.”

The CRTC is requiring that, with the exception of hotels and motels, and most internet service providers, “most telecommunications service providers who provide international telecommunications services be subject to licensing” effective January 1, 1999. This is a substantial change from the former “registration” process for resellers. Existing service providers which are registered resellers will have to apply for and obtain a new license, if international or cross border services are provided to the public.

There will be two classes of licenses: Class A includes “those who operate telecommunications facilities, whether owned by them or leased from a separate facilities provider, used in transporting basic telecommunications service traffic between Canada and another country.” Class B includes “service providers who only resell the switched services of other service providers or who hand off all of their international traffic to another service provider in Canada for termination in another country.”

Licenses will generally be issued in 3 weeks according to the Commission, following the filing of application information on the public record. Initial licenses will be for five years.

Routing Restrictions
Effective immediately, the CRTC has lifted all restrictions on routing of calls. Calls from Canada to Canadian destinations or to overseas locations may now be freely routed through the United States. This important change raises questions about the value of new trans-Canadian fibre routes, given the ability for traffic to be routed through the US. With the majority of Canadians located within 100 miles of the US border, it is certainly easier to drop links from major Canadian centres to the nearest US city, than to connect Canadian cities to each other directly. This may affect the valuation of the Sprint – Ledcor fibre project.

Forbearance of Teleglobe
Teleglobe will continue to have its rates for calls to overseas destinations approved by the CRTC. The Commission determined that Teleglobe can be forborne from regulation in the Canada-Canada and Canada-US markets. In addition, Teleglobe continues to be obligated to interconnect with its competitors and permit open resale of its services. Teleglobe has been ordered to establish a “Carrier Services Group” within 30 days to safeguard information about Teleglobe’s wholesale clients from its retail sales channels.

While the Commission was not convinced that there was appropriate evidence of competition for Teleglobe’s international services, it is hard to imagine how long this situation will exist, given the freedom for carriers to use US facilities. The CRTC has invited Teleglobe to present evidence which will permit further de-regulation. Teleglobe was ordered to file all of its agreements with foreign carriers, even verbal agreements, in order to permit the CRTC to determine whether language in these agreements could lessen competition from new entrants. The CRTC indicated that it would likely support Teleglobe filing accounting rate information in these agreements in confidence.

The Commission will also continue to regulate Stentor’s agreements with foreign carriers until such time as forbearance is granted to Teleglobe.

Contribution
The CRTC rejected calls to eliminate contribution on cross border and international calls. Instead, the CRTC has moved to a “per-minute” charge imposed when the traffic leaves Canada, effective April 1, 1999. This replaces a “per-circuit” mechanism and will result in slightly increased costs for the non-Stentor companies, which will be greatly off-set by the expected reductions in international terminating costs due to the new competitive environment. Teleglobe will pay contribution for the first time.

Proportionate Return and Settlement Issues
Consistent with trends toward more open and flexible global markets for traffic, the CRTC is not requiring that correspondent relations be established in order to terminate traffic. It is also not requiring parallel accounting rules nor proportionate return of traffic to or from settled jurisdictions, in the absence of evidence of discriminatory practices. In a move which will increase Teleglobe’s flexibility, the CRTC also determined that accounting benchmarks, such as those being imposed by the FCC in the US, are not necessary in an environment of increased competition.

Reporting Requirements
The CRTC will require, as a condition of licence, confidential filings of quarterly reports on inbound and outbound traffic, by country of origin/destination, by service providers which actually transport calls in and out of Canada. The Commission will compile aggregated information for placement on the public record. The first reports are to be filed by May 17, 1999, to cover the first calendar quarter of 1999.

Licensees will also be required to publicly disclose a list of all agreements entered into with foreign service providers.

Retail Market Access
The CRTC rejected proposals by Teleglobe to allow consumers to select a different international carrier distinct from their regular long distance provider. The Commission also rejected Geo-Reach’s request to keep Stentor from directly entering the international services market and to keep Teleglobe from entering the domestic retail market.

Winners and Losers
Canadian consumers are the biggest winners in today’s decision. The CRTC has created one of the most liberal markets for international telecommunications. Prices for international calls will certainly fall as carrier costs come down. Watch for the UK to become the next flat rate country.

The relaxation of routing restrictions is particularly timely for Stentor members concerned about the Bell Canada national initiative. This may provide new opportunities for lower cost advanced services to be offered across Canada, using existing excess fibre bandwidth in the United States. AT&T Canada is well positioned to leverage its relationship with AT&T in the US for this capability.

Scroll to Top